This is a complaint made by one Sujit Kr. Bagchi, son of Late Ajit Kumar Bagchi, residing at 19/2D, Jheel Road, P.O.-Dhakuria, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 031 against (1) Sr. Commercial Executive, South Regional Office, Mandeville Gardens, Kolkata-700 019, OP No.1,  (2) General Manager, CESC Ltd, Victoria House, Kolkata, OP No.2 and (3) Samir Bagchi, son of Late Sudhendu Kumar Bagchi,  residing at 19/2D, Jheel Road, P.O.-Dhakuria, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 031, OP No.3, praying (a) for an order directing the CESC authority not to disconnect the electric meter vide Consumer No.75119130008, (b) an order directing the CESC authority not to transfer the name of the electric meter to the OP No.3 and (c) an order to maintain status quo by both the parties.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is a bona fide consumer of the domestic meter No.75119130008 and is paying bills regularly  up to date.

            Complainant submits that his father Late Ajit Kumar Bagchi and  uncle Late Sudhendu Kumar Bagchi were the joint possessors and occupiers of the premises No. Sri Samir Kumar Baghi, son of Late Sudhendu Kumar Bagchi were residing 19/2D, Jheel Road, P.O.-Dhakuria, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 031, since 1945 and after their demise the Complainant  and his cousin brother Samir Kumar Bagchi jointly possessed their respective portion. Complainant has Ration Card, Voter Identity card, Aadhar card, PAN card and all other documents of this address.

            Further, Complainant has stated that they were happily living in the premises where his father and uncle lived. There were two electric meters in the premises – one in the name of Complainant’s uncle and another in the name of his aunty, Aparna Bagchi. After their demise the Complainant and his family used the electric meter which was in the name of Aparna Bagchi and his cousin used the electric meter which was in the name of Samir Bagchi.

            Complainant learnt that after demise of his uncle Sudhendu Kumar Bagchi, the name in the meter was changed in the name of Samir Bagchi. In the month of June,2015, Complainant applied to CESC authority to change the meter in his own name from his aunt Late Aparna Bagchi and accordingly an enquiry was conducted and Complainant deposited security money for new electric meter. Complainant is paying CESC bills since last seven months. Complainant submits that on 2.9.2015 he received a notice from the CESC authority stating that they received one objection against the name transfer. Accordingly, Complainant attended the hearing called by the CESC authority and thereafter the electric meter was removed.

            Complainant further states that since he is not getting electric. So, he filed this case.

            OP No.3 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the Complainant.  OP No.3 has stated that he is the co-owner of premises No.19/2/
D, Jheel Road, Dhakuria, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 031 and Complainant was permitted to reside in the premises without any license and his status of licensee has been terminated by a notice which was duly served upon the Complainant on 12.6.2015. Further, this OP has denied all the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for dismissal of this case.

            OP No.1 & 2 has filed written version and has denied the allegations of the Complainant. They have supported the contention of OP and has further stated that Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in prayer No.1, 2 & 3.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has stated the facts mentioned in the complaint. Against this, OP No.3 has filed questionnaire to which Complainant has replied.

            OP No.3 has filed evidence against which Complainant has put questions to which OP No.3 has filed reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            Complainant has prayed for an order directing the CESC authority not to disconnect the electric meter by the CESC vide Consumer No.75119130008. On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainant as well as written argument submitted by the Complainant, it appears that the meter upon which Complainant seeks direction is not in his name. Since it is not in the name of the Complainant, the question of giving direction not to disconnect the electric line does not arise. Had the meter been in the name of the Complainant the matter would have been otherwise. So, by no stretch of imagination this prayer can be allowed.

            Prayer No.2 is a direction upon CESC authority not to transfer the name of electric meter to the OP No.3. Here also the same analogy applies. Complainant enjoyed the electric facilities through some other meter which he himself admitted in the complaint petition. Accordingly, he does not have any right to get an order or a direction upon the CESC authority not to transfer the name of electric meter to the OP No.3.

            In such circumstances, it is clear that Complainant is not entitled to this relief also.

            Prayer No.3 is an order to maintain status quo by both the parties. The status quo order is an order which should be granted mainly at the interim stage or during the pendency of any suit or case. Here we are adjudicating the dispute and it appears that there is no such circumstances where we can direct Complainant and all the OPs to maintain a status quo.

            Further, it appears that the Complainant filed an amendment petition wherein Complainant has prayed for new electric connection. We do not find that Complainant has taken steps for getting the electric connection.

            Further, it appears that Complainant Sujit Kumar Bagchi has filed copy of Voter Identity Card, copy of ration card for establishing that he is one of co-sharer of the property. But, there is no other document to establish this fact. OP No.3 has alleged that Complainant’s parents resided at the property as a licensee and the license was terminated before many years. So, Complainant is not entitled to have electric connection. Even if it is accepted that Complainant is in occupation, it is clear that he has not taken any step for getting electric connection. In such circumstances, there is no merit of this case.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/59/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.