Order no. 34 dated 28.7.15
Case of the complainant Sri Tarak Sardar in short is that he applied for new electric connection and paid necessary fees and charges to the OP no.1 WBSEDCL. But he is not getting the same on the ground that OP no.2 Sri Sadhan Karmakar openly threatened to the complainant. The complainant’s mother is ill and suffers in hot summer days for want of electricity. It is alleged by the complainant that despite receiving necessary fees and charges , the op no.1 has not given electricity connection to the complainant.
The OP no.1 WBSEDCL contested the case by filing Written version challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action as the company is always ready to execute the work for giving new electricity connection but local people forcibly prevented them . So there is no deficiency of service on their part and thereby the case is liable to be dismissed.
Now the oP no.2 Sri Sadhan Karmakar filed separate Written version stating therein that the case is not maintainable . The complainant has every right to take electric connection but not encroaching the land of this Op no.2 Sadhan Karmakar. In this connection, this Op no.2 stated in his claim that there is a Title suit being its no.331 of 2012 pending before the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, First
Court, Hooghly Sadar wherein an order of ad interim injunction has been passed and the same is still in force . The OP no.1 WBSEDCL is also party to the said Civil suit. Thus, there is no scope for passing order for new electric connection through over head line encroaching the land of OP no.2. stating the case disclosing in the written version , the op no.2 claims for dismissal of the prayer of the complainant.
The Op no.3 Reba Rani Karmakar separately contested the case by filing written version stating therein that there is no case of deficiency of service and thus, the case is not maintainable. The complainant wants to get electric connection through the land of opposite parties which cannot be permissible and as such the case should be dismissed.
Upon the cases of the parties , the following issued are framed :
ISSUES
Whether the case is maintainable for want of jurisdiction ?
Whether the Op is liable for deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant?
If the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASON :
All the issues are taken up together as the same are interlinked each other.
Learned Advocate for the complainant emphatically made argument that this is the Constitutional right of every citizen to avail of the electricity facility . Moreover, there are so many case decisions in this matter passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases. So, the Op no.1 WBSEDCL cannot disregard such right of the citizen like this complainant who has already complied with the necessary rules and regulations and even thereafter the oP no.1 failed to give new electric connection to the complainant. The plea raised by the OP no.1 should not be entertained and necessary directions to them should be given so that the complainant may get electric connection as prayed for.
Ld. Advocate for the Op no.1 , WBSEDCL made his reply that they are not avoiding to provide new electricity connection and for this purpose they have already moved to the locality for installation of new electric connection in terms of the application submitted by the complainant in their office. But due to local dispute and vehement objection the same could not be held possible. Since, this is the business of the oP no.1 , there is no valid reason for avoiding electricity to the complainant . So, according to the OP no.1 , they are not liable for deficiency of service as to the allegation of the complainant.
Ld. Advocate for the rest Op no.2 and 3 , in reply , submitted that there is a civil dispute with injunction restraining the complainant not to take electricity . The subject matter as in the civil dispute is known to the OP no.1 , WBSEDCL . If that be so there is no lawful jurisdiction open for the Forum to deal with the matter of giving direction to the oP no.1 WBSEDCL for giving connection. Even, the complainant has no lawful demand to insist the OP no.1 till the civil dispute is disposed of.
We have carefully considered the argument , BNA, Written version, affidavit in chief together with relevant documents as per firisti and it appears that the complainant has not made any allegation against the oP no. 1 WBSEDCL . In this context, Xerox copy of record of rights being Kh.no.276 exposes that deceased Kalipada Sardar , father of the present complainant was a co-possessor in the bastu land of plot no.1185 in mouza Simla, J.L. no. 16 by virtue of license under Gour Gopal Singha Roy (deceased). The Op no. 2 and 3 have no dispute as regard to the possession of the complainant in the said bastu land to which the new electricity connection through the common passage leading from main road to his house is prayed for . The order of injunction relates to the subject of not crossing over the house property of the OP no.2 and 3. We have scrutinized he aforesaid record of rights . It appears that area of plot no. 1185 is 16 decimals out of which 6 decimals is believed to be occupied by the oP no. 2 and 3.
Under the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, we are in the opinion that since the OP no.1 WBSEDCL has accepted the application together with necessary fees and charges from the complainant, it is their duty to take care and exercise their diligent effort in the matter of erection of electricity line through the common passage leading from the main road to his dwelling house so that the complainant may get connection as prayed for .
In view of the observation based on documentary evidence , the OP no.1 WBSEDCL should be directed for taking suitable steps and arrangement in giving new electricity connection to the complainant .
Thus, all the issues are held and disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Hence ordered
That the complaint case no. 41 of 2012 be and the same is allowed on contest in favour of the complainant.
The Op no. 1 , WBSEDCL, Kajidanga Group Electric Supply, Debanandapur, is hereby directed to take suitable arrangements and steps for giving new electricity connection to the dwelling house of the complainant within 30 days from this date.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
