C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/22
COMPLAINANT : Kamal Ghosh
S/o Late Nani Gopal Ghosh
R/o Baghadanga South Lane,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Station Manager, WBSEDCL,
Bejikhali, P.O. Krishnagar
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
2) Urmila Bala Ghosh,
W/o Late Nani Gopal Ghosh
- Amar Ghosh
- Krishna Ghsoh
- Shyamal Ghosh
All S/o Nani Gopal Ghosh
R/o Baghadanga South Lane,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
- Sabita Ghosh
W/o Bisweswar Ghosh
R/o Vill. Birnagar Rail Bazaar,
P.O. Birnagar, P.S. Taherpur,
Dist. Nadia
- Jharna Ghosh
W/o Late Banshidhar Ghosh
R/o Subarnabihar, P.O. Amghata,
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
8) Pramila Ghosh
W/o Late Indu Ghosh
R/o Mayakol, P.O. Anandanagar,
P.S. Dhubulia, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 06th July, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that his father Late Nani Gopal Ghosh died leaving behind wife Urmila Bala Ghosh, four sons, viz., Amar, Krishna, Shyamal and Kamal and four daughters. It is his further case that in the scheduled property the complainant’s one brother i.e., OP No. 5 has got separate electric connection who did not allow this complainant to enjoy electricity. Due to family dispute, the other co-sharers of the complainant filed a partition suit before the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Krishnagar. With a view to get independent electric connection the complainant approached the OP No. 1 for separate connection which was not given to him. Thereafter his lawyer sent a notice to the OP No. 1 with a request to give separate connection in the paternal house of the complainant where he lives separately. The complainant is living without electricity though his two sons are students. So he is in need of electricity which is denied by the OP. Therefore, having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP No. 1 electricity authority has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form. It is his submission that as a civil suit is pending among the complainant and the other co-sharers, so this complainant may pray for relief before the civil court. Besides this, the complainant in his petition of complaint did not state when he filed an application before this OP along with other documents for having connection. This OP gave a reply to the notice issued by the ld. lawyer for the complainant and intimated how and in which process the new connection may be obtained. The petitioner neither took any step nor filed any application as per provision of SEB. So this petitioner has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
Separate written version has filed on behalf of the OP No. 2, 3, 4 & 6. It is their contention that the case is not maintainable in its present form. They have stated that their predecessor, Nani Gopal Ghosh took electric connection being service connection No. D/8868 over his residential house. Nani Gopal Ghosh died leaving behind his wife, four sons and four daughters. A civil suit being No. T.S. 214/2008 is pending among the co-sharers of the Nani Gopal Ghosh before the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Nadia in connection with dwelling house. So this complainant has no locus standi to apply for separate electric connection in his name in the suit property which is still unpartitioned.
OP No. 5 has filed a separate written version in this case. He has stated also that Nani Gopal Ghosh died leaving behind his wife, four sons and four daughters among them the complainant is one of the sons who resides at his paternal house at Krishnagar and in that house this OP No. 5 has got separate electric connection. He has also stated that a civil suit is pending among the heirs of Nani Gopal Ghosh with regard to dwelling house of Nani Gopal Ghosh. The existing electric connection is used by the complainant in ejmali, so until any portion of house is demarcated by the co-sharers the complainant has no right to pray for separate electric connection as no specific portion of the house is yet demarcated in his favour. Therefore, he has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written versions filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and on oral evidences and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for all sides it is available on record, that the suit property as described in scheduled of the complainant originally belonged to Nani Gopal Ghosh who died leaving behind wife, four sons and four daughters. It is also admitted by the complainant and the OP No. 2 to 6 and 7 that the suit property is still unpartitioned among the co-sharers though the complainant resides there as an heir of Nani Gopal Ghosh. It further reveals that in the suit property there is a meter in the name of OP No. 5. A civil suit for partition of the suit property with regard to dwelling house of Nani Gopal Ghosh being No. T.S. 214/08 is pending among the co-sharers and heirs of the Nani Gopal Ghosh before the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Krishnagar. So we find that still now the paternal property is unpartitioned though he resides there along with the other co-sharers. He has not mentioned any specific portion of the suit property where he intends to have an electric connection. Besides this, as the civil suit is pending he should pray before the civil court for having separate electric connection at his occupied portion of the property.
The complainant has stated that he approached the OP No. 1 to get an independent electric connection at his premises which was denied by the OP No. 1. To that extent no document is filed by him. On his behalf a lawyer’s notice was issued to the OP No. 1 on 04.12.10 by Sri Bhabani Pramanik. In that lawyer’s letter it is stated that a civil suit is pending with regard to suit property among the co-sharers of Nani Gopal Ghosh. Nowhere it is stated that the OP declined to give a new electric connection to this complainant due to which he was compelled to issue this notice on behalf of the complainant. Even no date is mentioned when the complainant approached the OP No. 1 for having a new connection. In the written version the OP No. 1 has categorically stated that in reply to the notice issued by the ld. advocate for the complainant vide memo No. AE/KTD/Court Case (T/3)/3926 dtd. 21.12.10 intimated how and in which process the new connection could be obtained. On receipt of the said reply the petitioner neither took any step nor filed a proper application as per the provision of SEB before this OP No. 1. Regarding this statement of the OP No. 1 there is no challenge or any statement is made by the complainant in his examination-in-chief. At the time of argument, ld. lawyer for the complainant has frankly submitted that the complainant has not become able to establish that actually he approached before the OP No. 1 for having a new connection at his premises, as a result of this no question of denial by the OP No. 1 is also proved for giving a separate new connection at his premises does arise.
In view of the above discussions our considered view is that the complainant has not become able to prove his cause of action to file this case. So he is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/22 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
