Sri A.K. Bhattacharyya, President

The complainants’ case may be briefly stated as follows:

The Complainants are residing at their ownership premises situated on plot no. 816 of Mouza - Sutahata, District Purba Medinipur. The complainants along with their family members have been using their common passage situated on the western side of C. S. Plot No. 566 corresponding to R. S. Plot no. 699, 699/1434 and 701 of same Mouza for a long time from their said dwelling premises. The Complainants (Bablu Manna, since deceased) instituted T. Suit no. 53/2002 against the O. P. No. 5,6 and 7 before the Ld. Civil Judge (J.D.) at Haldia Sub div. Civil Court for declaration as to right of common passage as the said opposite parties threatened on or about 05/03/02 the complainant to stop use of the said common passage. The Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) passed an order directing both sides to maintain status quo on the said passage described in schedule ‘ka’.

The petitioner predecessor Bablu Manna (son of the complainant no. 1) submitted an application on 29.08.2011 for new electricity connection for their premises before the opposite party no. 1 for supplying electricity energy through the said passage. The said Bablu Manna deposited required money before opposite party no. 1 by 29/11/2011. Even after service of notice on 02/05/12 through his Advocate upon the O.P.no.1, no steps has yet been taken by O.P. no. 1. The said Bablu Manna and others moved a writ application through his Ld. Advocate, before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta against the O.P.no. 1 for directions upon the O.P. no. 1 for electricity supply connection to the premises of the complainant through the said passage. In spite of specific directtion of Hon’ble High Court upon the OP, no electricity connection is given to the complainant’s premises. Hence, the instant case for same relief.

The O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. No. 3,4 and 5 contested the instant case by filing separate written versions, where in all the material allegations made against them by the complainants have been denied.

Both the parties filed their respective documents (photocopies/original) as per their respective lists of document.

Decision with reasons:

We have heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides over the argument and carefully gone through the pleadings and documents on record filed by the parties.

It is found from the order no. 32 dt. 03/01/06 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Haldia in respect of T. Suit no. 53/2002 filed by Bablu Manna since deceased and others against the O.P. No. 3, 4 and 5, after hearing of both sides over the application of injunction, that both parties are directed to maintain status quo, over the path way in the ‘ka’ schedule land as regard the nature, character and possession till disposal of the T. Suit.

There is no dispute that the said order of status quo is still in existence.

According to the O.P. no. 1 it was not possible to give electricity connection through the said pathway in ‘ka’ schedule land for existence of such order of status quo over the said disputed passage.

The certified copy of order dt. 26/07/12 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in connection with writ application being W. P. No. 14994 (W) of 2012 filed by the said Bablu Manna since deceased and others against the O. P. No. 1 and other goes to show that there is specific direction upon the O. P. No. 1 to cause an inspection at the premises in question for exploring the  possibility of giving new electric connection to the petitioner without disturbing the pathway in question  by passing speaking order within a period of four weeks from date after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no. 1 and respondents no. 5, 6, and 7 (seven) and to communicate that order to all the party without any delay. In the event the decision is taken in favour of the application of the petitioner no. 1 (Bablu Manna since deceased). The respondent authority is directed to give new electric connection to him forthwith and in the event of any obstruction from other side, the respondent no. 1 (the O. P. No. 1 herein) can approach the O/C of concerned police station for police help. If the decision is taken in favour of other side, then the respondent authority will communicate to the parties.

It is important to note that at the time of the said hearing before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, the Ld. Council appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that admittedly there is an order to maintain status quo dt. 03/01/06 passed in T. S. No. 53/2002 by the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div. ) Haldia and so there is no chance of affecting the order of status quo in the event of overhead electric cable is drawn for giving him new electric connection.

It appears from the letter dt. 10/07/14 addressed to Bablu Manna and others by Station Manager, Chaitanyapur, W.B.S.E.B.C.L about information of hearing to be held on 14/07/14 at the chamber of the said Station Manager at 4 p.m. as per order dt. 25/03/14 of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in C/W – F. M. A. No. 208/2013 which was received by the said Bablu Manna.

As the said Bablu Manna or his representative did not appear on 14/07/14, the said Station Manager served again another notice dt. 28/07/14 upon the said Bablu Manna requesting him to attend the said hearing to be held on 04/08/14 at 4 p.m. at his said chamber. Any decision over this matter could not be taken on 04/08/14 as the said Bablu Manna or his representative was absent for hearing though other parties were present which appeared from the note sheet dt. 04/08/14 of said Station Manager on record.

It is revealed from the photocopy of order dt. 25/03/14 given by Hon’ble Chief Justice Arun Mishra and Hon’ble Justice Mr. Joymaliya Bagchi (Divisional Bench) High Court, Calcutta in C/W F. M. A. No. – 208/2013 that an appeal is preferred by Narayan Chandra Manna and others before Hon’ble Divisional Bench against the impugned order passed by Hon’ble Single Bench in  W. P. No. 14994 (W) of 2012. The Hon’ble Divisional Bench by above order dismissed the said appeal.

Since there has already been specific direction of Hon’ble High Court as discussed above in the matter of giving electric connection in question, by taking step and inspection for exploring the possibility of giving new electric connection without disturbing the pathway in question, then the question arises in such position, can this Forum pass any direction over the similar prayer of complainants, beyond the direction of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.

The answer would be “not at all”. If any direction is passed by this Forum on the basis of similar prayer of the complainants over the same self matter, by ignoring the above mentioned specific direction of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, that would be unlawful. Moreover, we are unable to comprehend as to how the complainants could file the instant case over the same self matter with similar prayers for wasting the valuable time of the Forum and for harassment of the litigant parties.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, we feel that the instant C. Case is not maintainable in law and in the result, the instant C. Case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Hence, it is,

Ordered

that the instant C. Case being no. 2/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 4000/- to be deposited by the complainants to the ‘Consumer Legal Aid Account of Dist. Forum of Purba Medinipur’ within 30 days from the date of this final order, otherwise law may take its own course.