PER; HON’BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

            Challenge in this Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Order No.77 dated 12.06.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Execution Application No. 15/2018 arising out of CC/337/2017.  

          We have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by Mr. Debesh Halder, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant.  None appears for the Respondent despite service of notice. 

          Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant and on going through the materials on record it would reveal that the Respondent herein Smt. Rekha Maity being Complainant lodged a consumer complaint under section 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum being CC/337/2017.  By a judgement/final order dated 18.09.2017 the said complaint was allowed on contest.  By the said order, the appellant/OP was directed to supply electric connection of the house of the complainant with immediate effect, if required with police help on condition that complainant will give Way Leave to the OP for drawal of the overhead electric line.

          For non-compliance with the said order, the Respondent herein initiated an execution application being EA/15/2018.  The impugned order runs as follows –

          “Order No.77  Dated-12.06.2018

          Record is put up for order.  J.Dr. has prayed for clarification of the Forum’s order dated 27.04.2018.  It appears that the J.Dr. has no intention to comply the Forum’s order.  Hence, the petition is rejected.  Issue W.A. against the Assistant Engineer and Station Manager, Pratappur Consumer Care Centre, WBSEDCL, Vill-Bahargram, P.O.-Panskura, P.S.- Panskura fixing 04.07.2018 for E.R. of W.A.  Office to comply”.

          Mr. Debesh Halder, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate that the company/WBSEDCL tried their level best as many as six occasions for effecting new connection to the complainant even with police help as well as with the help of the Pradhan of Local Gram Panchayat.  He has further contended that when the State machinery fails to protect the Company personal, the Ld. District Forum should not have issued warrant of arrest against the appellant.  He has forcefully submitted that as many as five times the appellant has made attempt in presence of police personal, local representative, local Panchayat Pradhan but one Sri Prasenjit Maity and his family members physically resisted in the work of drawing the overhead line as the same is crossing the land of one Sri Prasenjit Maity.

          We have given due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant and seen the materials on record.

          Upon hearing the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that in order to execute the order, the appellant has made several attempts but all went in vain.  It also transpires that on 22.12.2017 a fifth attempt was made in presence of police personnel, local representative, local Gram Panchayat Pradhan but due to active resistance by Sri Prasenjit Maity and his family members, the execution could not be done.  Over the incident, one FIR was lodged to the Officer-in-Charge, Panskura Police Station on 22.12.2017 clearly naming the name of Sri Prasenjit Maity, who has given active resistance in execution of lawful order passed by a competent Court of law.

          In view of the documents available with the record including the copy of FIR lodged by WBSEDCL on 22.12.2017 with Panskura P.S., it appears that there was no intentional or deliberate latches on the part of J.Dr./appellant to execute the basic order passed by the Ld. District Forum dated 18.09.2017. 

          However, it is the bounden duty on the part of J.Dr./appellant to comply with the order, more particularly, when the objector did not prefer any appeal against the order passed by the Ld. District Forum.  In a decision reported in 2011 (2) CHN 768 [Abhimanyu Majumdar –vs. –  Superintendent Engineer & Anr.] the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court has held that under the ambit of Article 21 of Constitution of India, the right of electricity comes within the derived right ‘right to shelter’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India could be available even to trespassers and unauthorised occupier.  In the case beforehand, the D.Hr./OP claiming herself to be owner of a residential house sought electric connection from WBSEDCL by depositing the requisite fees.  Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. District Forum should be executed, implemented and carried out in its letter and spirit.

          Considering all the above, the instant appeal stands disposed of with a direction upon the appellant/J.Dr. to comply with the order passed by the Ld. District Forum on 18.09.2017 in CC/337/2017 by giving electric connection in the house of respondent/D.Hr. by fixing a specific date within one month from date with proper police help and in this regard, if any resistance comes from Sri Prasenjit Maity and his family members or some other persons, the Officer-in-Charge, Panskura P.S. must take action and register a case against those persons on the basis of FIR lodged by one Sri Shuvo Deb Saha s/o Sri Sujit Saha received by Panskura P.S. on 22.12.2017.

          With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

          The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for information and also to the Officer-in-Charge, Panskura P.S. for information and necessary action keeping in view the decision of Full Bench of The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Abhimanyu Majumdar (supra).