W B S E B Vs. MANINDRANATH KOLEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Hooghly, on 28.4.2003 in the Case No.34/2003, wherein the Forum below has allowed the case but without any cost and directed the O. P. to provide new electric connection to the complainant in his tailoring shop within one month from the date of the order subject to compliance of all formalities as per the rules and regulations of the Board. The complainant was directed to provide way leave in getting electric connection. The brief facts of the case of the complainant before the Forum are that he applied for electric connection in his shop but he was denied electric connection on the ground of non-production of no objection certificate from the landlord, rent receipt, etc. The complainant's allegation was that he deposited a sum of Rs.150/- and allotted a service connection number but he was not provided with electric connection. Thereafter he filed a case before the Forum praying for direction upon the O. P. to provide him electric connection in his tailoring shop immediately.

(2.) Being dissatisfied with the above mentioned order the appellant-W. B. S. E. B. has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the present respondent was enjoying electricity in the shop unauthorisedly by hooking for which FIR was lodged against his brother who was found on the spot at that time and the police arrested him. It is further submitted by appellant that as the complainant was committing theft of electricity and proceeding is going on against his brother, he is not entitled to get electric connection and the Forum cannot compel the Board by directing to provide separate electricity connection to a person who has committed theft of electricity. Moreover, the complainant could not produce way leave from his landlord and the landlord was not a party to this case. As it is a case of dispute between the landlord and the tenant, it is not maintainable before the Consumer Court. According to the appellant the judgment passed by the Forum is erroneous, unjust and liable to be set aside.

(3.) Perusing the record and the judgment passed by the Forum below it is noticed by us that the complainant applied for installation of separate electric connection at his tailoring shop, but he was refused by the appellant on the ground that he has failed to produce any way leave from his landlord. The appellant has further alleged that the respondent was enjoying electricity unauthorisedly by hooking for which an FIR was lodged against his brother who was found on the spot at that time and police arrested him. Regarding using of electricity illegally we are of the opinion that the appellant failed to produce any document which reflects that he was enjoying electricity unauthorisedly by hooking and an FIR was lodged and proceeding is going on. So we are inclined not to accept such contention as alleged by the appellant and which is hereby rejected. Regarding the way leave from the landlord we are of the clear view that a lawful tenant is always entitled to get separate electric connection in his name and for this purpose no consent or way leave permission from the landlord of that premises is necessary. In this context we may mention a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, Punam Ranga V/s. CESC Limited,1995 2 CLJ 168 where the High Court has held that an occupier can get supply of electricity from the licensee without the consent of the owner of the premises, but of course the occupier must be a person of lawful occupation of the concerned building.