DATE OF FILING : 25.06.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 29.08.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 27.07.2015.
Rajesh Kumar Gupta,
son of late Jaganath Prasad Gupta
of Banstala, Chamrail, P.S. Liluah,
District Howrah,
PIN 711114. …………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. The Chairman,
WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhaban, P.S. Bidhannagar,
Salt Lake City,
Kolkata 700 091.
2. Assistant Engineer,
WBSEDCL, Jagadishpur Hat, Jagadishpur CCC, P.S. Liluah,
District Howrah,
PIN – 711308
3. The Station Manager
WBSEDCL, Jagadishpur Hat, Jagadishpur CCC, P.S. Liluah,
District Howrah,
PIN 711308.
4. The Revenue Officer,
WBSEDCL, Jagadishpur Hat, Jagadishpur CCC, P.S. Liluah,
District Howrah,
PIN 711308.
5. Tapan Roy,
6. Swapan Roy,
7. Goutam Roy,
o.p. nos. 5 to 7 are sons of late Bistupada Roy,
8. Bimala Bala Roy,
w/o. late Bistupada Roy,
9. Jhantu Roy,
son of Tapan Roy,
10. Sandhya Roy,
w/o. Jhantu Roy,
5 to 10 all are residing at
Village Chamrail, Banstala, P.S. Liluah,
District Howrah,
PIN 711114. ……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Rajesh KumarGupta, against the WBSEDCL and six others praying for a direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 to 4 being the Chairman, WBSEDCL,and their Assistant Engineer, Station Manager,& Revenue Officer, Jagadishpur Hat, Jagadishpur CCC, WBSEDCL, to take necessary step for rendering new electric connection to the petitioner at his residence and if required with the help and protection of the local P.S. Liluah, and also directing o.p. nos. 5 to 10 being the local residence not to create any obstruction in rendering such electric connection to the petitioner.
- The case of the petitioner further is that he is the absolute owner of property situated at dag no. 1592 in khatian no. 1654 in khatian no. 146 within new khatian no. 1150 and 1812 at Mouza Chamrail, P.S. Liluah, District Howrah, and in the eastern side of his property there is a 4’ common passage which go to the panchayat road.The passage runs from north to south. The o.p. nos. 5 to 10 also residing by the side of the common passage. The petitioner applied before the WBSEDCL Jagadishpur CCC, for rendering new electric connection to him. Rather the o.p. by a letter dated 12.6.2014 told him due to legal obligation lying over the premises they are unable to give him electricity through the common passage. The o.p. nos. 5 to 10 though enjoying electricity created obstruction with ill intention to give new electric connection to the petitioner. The petitioner further submitted that one Himadri Shekhar Panda, one of his adjacent resident, applied for electricity and he got it through this Forum and so he filed this case.
- The o.p. nos. 1 to 4 contested the case by filing a separate written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the petitioner applied for electricity and also deposited the quotation money but the local people objected and so they could not give electric connection even though they are ready to supply electricity and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
- The o.p. nos. 5 to 10 being the local residence submitted that the o.p. no. 8, Bimala Bala Roy, is the owner and occupier of the property situated at dag no. 1552 being new dag no. 1659 with khatian no. 146 and new khatian nos. 1190 and 1812. This petitioner and one Himadri Shekhar Panda are trying to encroach into the o.p.’s land by creating the 4’ passage of which there is no existence and in this way Himadri Shekhar Panda got the electricity. Bimala Roy filed title suit before Civil Court being case no. 35 of 2013 for declaration and injunction and parties were directed to maintain status quo for the suit property and any final order passed by this Forum would vitiate the order of the Civil Court.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of theO.P. nos. 1 to 4 , WBSEDCL Authority ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues aretaken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration.In the instant case, this Forum finds that the petitioner filed an affidavit along with documents which show that he prayed for electric connection as there is no such connection in his house. He applied before WBSEDCL Authority who are always willing to effect new connection to the petitioner but the objection raised by o.p. nos. 5 to 10 who actually cannot stand for effecting the proposed service connection in accordance with the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act as an occupier of a property is entitled to electricity and this petitioner has statutory right to call upon the distribution company to give him electricity. Merely because some local residents have been objecting against the supply of new service of electricity to the petitioner it would be taken as a ground by the o.p. nos. 1 to 4 namely WBSEDCL Authority to deny electric connection to the petitioner as no right vests on the local residents to object the supply of such electric service connection to the petitioner. It would be remembered here that water and electricity remaining in the institution of the statutory authorityof the state, the same cannot be denied to the local residents by such authority. It is the duty of the statutory authority to provide such electric connection to the petitioner.
- In the instant case the petitioner proved that he is a resident of the property and he has no connection and he applied for it and deposited security money and thus the o.p. nos. 1 to 4have no other alternative but to render new electric connection to the petitioner whether the o.p. nos. 5 to 10 also have no authority to object.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 350 of 2014 ( HDF 350 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against the o.ps. but no order is passed as to costs in view of facts and circumstances of the case.
The O.P. nos. 1 to 4 are directed to render electric connection to the petitioner within one month from the date of this order if required with the help of the police authority and the o.p. nos. 5 to 10 are directed not to disturb in rendering of service connection and the o.ps. failing to comply the order of the Forum, the petitioner is give liberty to put the order in execution.
Other prayers are denied.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
