In the present complaint, complainant Malati Shaw by filing this complaint has submitted that she is a lawful occupier of the premises at 11, Abinash Kabiraj Lane, Kolkata – 700006 and she has no electric connection for which she has been suffering and for which getting new electric connection with meter for domestic purpose filed an application on 01.10.2013 on payment of Rs.200/- to CESC and thereafter CESC issued a letter to the complainant on 01.01.2013 and informed that inspection would be carried out on 04.01.2013 and complainant agreed to pay all charges/security deposit as per law but the CESC till date did not take any action for installation of a new meter.

          On the other hand CESC wrote a letter to the complainant on 05.01.2013 that due to objection raised by one Pammi Singh, the land lady they are unable to give a new connection to the complainant and in response to the said letter the complainant wrote a letter on 22.01.2013 expressing her need and urgency of electric meter.  But op did not agree but as per provision of Section 43(i) of Electricity Act 2003 complainant is bound to pay the same but the op has not complied for that this complaint is filed praying for relief.

          On the other hand, CESC submitted that they were ready to give connection but due to several litigation amongst occupiers and the landlady several cases were started and further Geeta Singh and Raju Singh filed several cases before Hon’ble High Court against the CESC but in all the cases Geeta Singh and Raju Singh lost and it was decided by the Division Bench also that Geeta Singh and Raju Singh are not entitled to get any electric connection. 

          Moreover Hon’ble High Court by passing judgement imposed penalty upon them for filing such writ petition against CESC before the Hon’ble High Court.  In the circumstances, complainant was directed to give such chance to install meter and for fixation but complainant failed to do that for which the connection was not given.  But there was no fault on the part of the op.

          On the contrary op no.3 the landlady by filing written statement submitted that the present complainant is not entitled to get any connection because she has suppressed the total fact, though she has stated in her complaint at Page-2 that she has been residing with her other family members peacefully in the said premises.  But she has failed to produce that she is the tenant rather it would be proved from the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WP No.18853 (WP/10) and Civil Appeal No. FA-2507/2011 that the mother and brother of the present complainant filed writ before the Hon’ble High Court against CESC and present op no.3 and against that writ application also appeal was also preferred and in that appeal also they failed to get any connection on the ground that the Hon’ble High Court came to a conclusion that the writ application of WP No.18853 (WP/10) was dismissed on the ground that the complainant’s mother and brother already for the same premises for electric connection filed such case against CESC but that was turned down and considering various factors and in the appeal also the mother and brother of the complainant lost and in fact in respect of the same same premises in which the complainant has been residing along with her mother and brother filed suit No.1756/2001 pending before Ld. Judge, 2^nd Bench, City Civil Court and in the Hon’ble High Court her mother and brother lost and they failed to get any connection and Hon’ble High Court considered the entire fact and thereafter when her mother and brother failed to get any relief, complainant appeared before this Forum by submitting an application for new electric connection  and in the complaint she has not stated her father’s name for that reason and in fact her mother and brother Geeta Singh and Raju Singh have not appeared before this Forum for relief.

          In fact the entire complaint is filed by suppressing the order of the Hon’ble High Court in the writ application and also in the appeal and under any circumstances, this complaint should not be lodged in view of the fact that the complaint is filed with some false version and suppressing the truth of existing judgements of the Hon’ble High Court in support of the present room and for which the complainant’s claim for new electric connection should be rejected.  But she is used by her mother Geeta Singh and brother Raju Singh and for which the entire complaint should be dismissed.

                                             Decision with reasons

          In this particular case after hearing the argument of the Ld. Lawyers of the complainant and the ops and also ple thora of judgement filed by the complainant, it is found that complainant plain case that she is occupier , so as per provision of section 43 of the CP Act she is entitled to get separate electric connection even if the land lady op no.3 has raised objection.

          But Ld. Lawyer for the op (CESC) submitted that they are willing to give connection but they are being resisted by the other occupiers of the said premises and the landlady and they are showing the judgements against the actual occupier her mother and brother (Geeta Singh and Raju Singh).

          On the other the Ld. Lawyer for the op no.3 submitted that in respect of the same same room the present complainant’s mother Geeta Singh and brother Raju Singh filed writ application bearing WP No.18853 (WP/10) and in that application it was decided that they are not entitled to get any connection against that the brother and mother of the complainant preferred appeal 1494/10 that was also dismissed by Hon’ble Division Bench on 09.08.2011.  Thereafter suppressing the entire fact  another application of writ application was filed by Geeta Singh and Raju Singh being No.WP/10736 (WP/12) and that was also dismissed on 04.06.2012 and a cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed against Geeta Singh and Raju Singh and fact remains thereafter Geeta Singh and Raju Singh sent their sister the present complainant to get relief.  Then question is in except of one room how mother and brother and sister separately can apply for electric connection and particularly in this case when other family members that is brother and mother of the present complainant lost before the Hon’ble High Court by filing one after another writ application and appeal then complainant is the last sword and that was applied by Geeta Singh and Raju Singh.

          Fact remains present complainant has been residing in the room along with his mother and brother and considering that fact and in view of the above there is no scope to reopen the order of Hon’ble High Court and also of the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court and it is a false case for which she should be penalized.

          Fact remains we have gone through the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WP No.18853 (WP/10) by Geeta Singh and Raju Singh against CESC and also the present op no.3 which was dismissed on contest on 09.09.2010.  Against that appeal No. MAT 1494/10 was preferred by them and that was also dismissed on contest on 09.08.2011 and the present two orders resist the mother and brother of the present complainant to adopt any other procedure but again they filed another writ application being No.WP 10736 (WP/12) which was also dismissed on 04.06.2012 and when the brother and mother of the present complainant found that they are completely defeated in Kurukeshtra then they changed their field and sent their sister or daughter before this Forum by filing an application for a new electric connection on 01.01.2013.  No doubt it is proved that the past fight fought by the mother and brother of present complainant ended vide order dated 04.06.2012 and after waiting for 4 months this complainant was sent before this Forum by him.

          Most interesting factor is that Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted many ruling but it should be looked into that there are standing verdict of the Hon’ble High Court in 3 cases one in appeal and another 2 writ petition where section 43 of the Electricity Act also were considered and they are not entitled to get any connection and until and unless that order of Hon’ble High Court are set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under any circumstances the present complainant cannot get any electric connection in the same premises in respect for which there are verdict of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and no doubt it is clear that this complainant is a sword in the hand of Geeta Singh and Raju Singh and that sword has been applied in another Kurukeshtra.  But fact remains that landlady was in the game already and only to by- pass that they sent their sister or daughter to get relief but fact remains the entire case is false and fabricated and suppressing all the judgements passed in WP 18853 (WP/10), MAT 1494/10 and also WP No.10736 (WP/12) which are against the present complainant also because she is residing with her mother and brother in the present premises and as because there is no other scope on behalf of the complainant to claim her right in the said premises in respect of any other room and fact remains that there is no room in the complainant to claim any electric connection when in respect of the same same room complainant’s mother and brother (Geeta Singh and Raju Singh) lost upto appelete court of Hon’ble High Court and fact remains CESC had no fault, no latches but only relief complainant can get if she may prefer an appeal on behalf of his mother and brother before Hon’ble Supreme Court to vacate the order of Hon’ble High Court.

          In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that such a complaint should be dismissed as same is vexatious, false and by suppressing order of the Hon’ble High Court and for which we are dismissing the complaint by imposing the penalty of Rs.10,000/- against the complainant.

          Hence, it is

                                                          ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the ops as the entire complaint is vexatious, false and fabricated and suppressing the fact of existence of judgement of Hon’ble High Court in 2 writ petitions and one appeal.

          So, complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as punitive cost to this Forum within one month from the date of this order failing which penal action shall be taken against her even the penal proceedings shall be started against her.