DATE OF FILING : 04.04.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 15.05.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 02.07.2015.
1. Kabirul Azad Purkait,
2. Mohinuddin Azad Purkait,
both s/o late Ruhul Azad Purkait,
of village Jujarsha Malipukur, P.O. Jujarsha,
P.S. Panchla, District Howrah,
PIN 711302. ……………………………………………….. COMPLAINANTS.
Versus -
1. District Engineer,
WBSEDCL, office at Kamardanga, Ichapur, Kadamtala,
Howrah 711101.
2. The Station Manager,
WBSEDCL office at Jaladhulagori, CCC,
P.S. Sankrail, District Howrah,
PIN 711302.
3. Meheraj Purkait,
son of late Year Mohammad Purkait
of village Jujarsha Malipukur, P.O. Jujarsha, P.S. Panchal,
District Howrah,
PIN 711302.…..……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak, L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).
F I N A L O R D E R
1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioners, Kabirul Azad Purkait & Mohinuddin Azad Purkait, against the O.Ps. praying for a direction on the o.p. nos. 1 & 2, WBSEDCL Authority, to supply electricity connection by installing electric meter in the premises of the complainant and direct the o.p. no. 3 not to disturb the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 at the time of installation of electric connection.
- The case of the petitioners are that they are the owners and occupiers in dag no. 4467 and 4468 of khatian no. 3474 under mouza Jujarsha, P.S. Panchal, and o.p. no. 3 has his occupation at dag no. 4550 and new dag no. 5547 under khatian no. 4456 in the same village and P.S. The o.p. no. 3 is not the owner of the land but he raised resistance when the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 came for installation of electric poles and wires on the panchyat path way. The petitioners filed application for new connection and as per quotation of o.p. nos. 1 & 2 the petitioners deposited the earnest money. O.p. nos. 1 & 2 returned when the o.p. no. 3 obstructed even though the electricity authority inspected the spot. Thus the petitioner filed this case praying for electric connection with the help of police if such help is required. Thus, the petitioners filed the case.
- The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 being the electricity authority contested the case by filing a separate written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that they are ready and willing to give electric connection to the petitioners but there is obstruction from the o.p. no. 3 and so the agency could not work and connection could not be effected and thus the case be dismissed against them.
4. The o.p. no. 3 though served with notice did not appear and thus the case is heard ex parte against him.
5. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. nos. 1 & 2, WBSEDCL ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion. On scrutiny of the case record being the averments in the petition as well as in the written version filed by the parties and the oral and documentary evidences and also the title deed of the petitioner showing that he is owner of the property wherein the electric connection is sought for. But this Forum should not enter into the right of the parties over their properties as well as their other rights but electricity being the primary need of a man of the city life, the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 cannot deny giving such connection to the petitioner. It is noticed from the written version of the o.p. no. 1 & 2 as well as from their written argument that the o.p. no. 3 obstructed them from installing the poles and drawing the wire on the way to drawing electric line to the premises of the petitioners as when their agency went to the area and tried to comply the order passed by them then they were obstructed by the o.p. no. 3 but the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are always ready and willing to give electricity. It is the sole authority of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to inspect the local area and draw the electric line on the poles installed by them and no one can legally obstruct them in doing their job. It is only the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 who can give such connection to the petitioner and none else. Thus keeping in mind the submission of their counsels of both sides and also keeping in mind their arguments this Forum is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get electricity and the o.ps. 1 & 2 are to supply such new electric connection to the petitioner and the o.p. no. 3 has no right to obstruct such performance as it is o.p. nos. 1 & 2 who would perform the job as would be thought proper by them.
In the result, the claim case succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 181 of 2014 ( HDF 181 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest without costs against the O.Ps.
The petitioner is entitled to get the electric connection as prayed for and the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are directed to supply such fresh electric connection in the premises of the petitioner through the way found suitable by them for drawing the line and also installing a new meter within 30 days from the date of this order and the o.p. no. 3 is directed not to disturb the work of o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in drawing such electric line and the o.ps. are failing to comply the order of the Forum within the stipulated period of 30 days, the petitioner would be at liberty to put the final order in execution.
Considering the circumstances of the case, the prayer regarding compensation and litigation costs is not allowed by this Forum.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
