AKHTER HOSSAIN Vs. CESC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied before the CESC Limited for supply of electricity at premises No. 30/1b/h/16, Ekbalpore Lane, Kolkata 700 023 (hereafter the said premises ). By letter dated 14. 5. 07, the District Engineer, South West District, cesc Limited informed the petitioner that in view of outstanding dues in respect of consumption of electricity recoverable at the said premises, he was required to call on the outstanding section of the Commercial Department of CESC Limited to resolve the issue and once the issue is resolved the supply would be effected. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been to the office of the respondent no. 2 and had apprised him of his induction as a new tenant and that he should not be saddled with the liability in respect of dues left outstanding by the erstwhile tenant. It is further case that despite number of requests and persuasions prove abortive and ultimately he was forced to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is the stand of the respondents in their affidavit in opposition that upon receipt of the application from the petitioner enquiry was conduct which reveal that premises no. 30/1 is a big bustee area of Ekbalpore Lane which was subsequently numbered 'h'. There are a number of defaulting consumers still residing in the said bustee who upon disconnection of their supply have been enjoying electricity by getting supply from other live customers. In view of such enquiry, an inspection report was submitted before the respondents pursuant whereto the letter dated 14. 5. 07 was issued requesting the petitioner to call on at the office. However, the petitioner did not respond by meeting any of the officers of CESC Limited.

(2.) IT has further been contended in the said affidavit that pursuant to an order dated 9. 7. 07 passed by Hon'ble Patherya, J. , the petitioner was called upon to attend the office of the respondent no. 26. 7. 07 for amicable settlement of the dispute. The petitioner's representative was asked to make a payment of a token amount of Rs. 5000/- for having supply of electricity. Although the representative of the petitioner agreed to settle the dispute and stated that the petitioner himself would visit the office of the respondents, but neither the said representative not the petitioner paid any visit and, therefore, the issue could not resolved out of court.

(3.) THIS Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and has perused the materials placed before it.