DATE OF FILING : 30.06.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 05.08.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 08.07.2016.
Sri Jatan Chandra Hati,
son of late Hiralal Hatil,
residing at Dafarpur Mansatala, P.O. Dafarpur, P.S. Domjur,
District Howrah. ……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The Chairman,
WBSEDCL, Bidhut Bhavan, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata 700091.
2. The Station Manager,
Domjur Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL,
Village & P.O. & P.S. Domjur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711405.
3. Shaktipada Hati,
son of late Santosh Hati.
4. Manik Hati,
son of late Basude Hati.
5. Gora Hati,
son of late Basude Hati.
6. Srikanta Hati,
son of late Gobordhan Hati,
all are residing at Dafarpur Mansatala, P.O. Dafarpur,
P.S. Domjur, District Howrah.………………………….…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, Jatan Chandra Hati, against the o.p. nos. 1 & 2, WBSEDCL and four others praying for a direction upon the o.p. no. 2 to supply electric connection in the house of the petitioner with the help of local police authority and also directing the o.p. nos. 3 to 6 not to put objection to the employees and agents of o.p. no. 2 while giving such connection and praying for compensation of Rs. 80,000/- from o.p. nos. 1 & 2 for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that the he is owner and occupier of house situated over 13 satak land in dag no. 4322, mouza Dafarpur, P.S. Domjur, and also owner of 12.5 satak land in dag no. 4322 / 5311. There is no domestic electric connection in the house of the petitioner and as per his application the o.p. no.2, Station Manager, Domjur Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL, inspected his property and he deposited a sum of Rs. 778/- for service connection charges but in spite of such deposit the o.p. no. 2 did not install new meter and thus avoided statutory obligation. The o.p. nos. 3 to 6 have been putting objection in getting new electric connection even if the said property is exclusive property of the petitioner and there is an exclusive passage for the petitioner through which there is clear ingress and egress to his house. Finding no other alternative the petitioner this case.
- The o.p. nos. 3 to 6 contested the case by filing his written version denying the allegation made against them and submitted that the petitioner wants to take electric connection through the property of others namely lands possessed by Gita Hati, Gobardhan Hati, Chandu Hati, Jiban Krishna Hati, and others. They further submitted that there is a complete separate passage through which overhead cables can be conveniently laid without causing any inconvenience to anybody but the petitioner has been insisting to lay such cable over and above the property of o.p. nos. 3 to 6 and their co-owners and they had already filed title suit before the ld. Civil Judge, Jr. Division, 4th Court, Howrah, who passed an injunction order against the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 restraining them not to lay cable and so the case against them be dismissed.
- The o.p. nos. 1 & 2, WBSEDCL, contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that they are always ready and willing to give connection to the petitioner being their statutory duty as they issued quotation resulting which the petitioner deposited the connection charges and the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 appointed M/S. Giri Electrical Enterprise and it went to the spot for drawing the electric line but the neighbor objected vehemently and also there is civil court injunction over the land through which the petitioner intending to draw the electric line to the house being T.S. 1455 of 2015 wherein the ld. Judge restrained the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 by order of injunction not to lay cable and the said suit has been pending and these o.ps. cannot not proceed to do the job. Hence this false case against the o.ps. be dismissed.
- 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 the O.P. WBSEDCL ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip off reiteration. In support of his case, the petitioner filed affidavit of evidences stating that there is clear passage from the gram panchayat road to the house of the petitioner in Dag no. 4322 but the o.p. nos. 3 to 6 illegally denied to draw the line through the passage to the house of petitioner and these o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in collusion with o.p. nos. 3 to 6 have been denying electric connection to the petitioner. In their argument the o.p. nos. 3 to 6 submitted that from in the southern side of the home of petitioner there is gram panchayat road and there is clear passage being 6’ wide to the house of the petitioner but instead of drawing the line from that southern side gram panchayat road the petitioner wants to take the electric one from the northern side gram panchayat road through the joint property of these o.ps. which is nothing but through dag no. 4333 and that dag is being undivided property of o.p. nos. 3 to 6 and the petitioner cannot draw line through their dag. The ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has share in dag no. 4333 and thus in every inch of the property of that dag he has share and he can draw electric line through that dag. The counsel for the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 submitted that they are always ready and willing to give connection if no objection is raised because there is risk of drawing the line at the cost of life of the workers be employed in the work.
- Our Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Khamura vs. Nayan Mallick and other sopined that the distribution company is to supply electricity to the applicant as the distribution licensee had a duty to the applicant whether he is owner or occupier. Our High Court in the case Abhimunya Majumdar, Superintendent Engineer and another categorically opined that a person who is in settled position of a property whether he is a trespasser or unauthorized encroacher, squatter of any premises yet he can apply for fresh electric connection without consent of the owner and is entitled to get electricity and enjoy the same until he is evicted by due process of law.
- In view of above decision of our Apex Court as well as our High Court and National Commission this Forum finds that if an unauthorized occupier is also entitled to electricity so long he is not evicted by a legal process. The injunction order passed by the ld. Civil Judge, 4th Court, Howrah, cannot be a bar in drawing electric line to the land of the petitioner because such an order of injunction is against the law of the land. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are to lay electric line to the house of the petitioner either from the southern gram panchayat road in the south to the house of the petitioner or from the gram panchayat road to the north of the house of the petitioner whichever is found more suitable but the petitioner cannot be denied electricity on any plea. The petitioner is not also entitled to any compensation and litigation costs from the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 because they were obstructed in laying such electric connection to the land of the petitioner.
In view of above discussion and findings the petitioner has been able to prove that he is entitled to electric connection and the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are to render such connection to the petitioner.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. No. 235 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest without costs against the O.Ps.
The petitioner is entitled to get new electric connection at his house and the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are directed to lay such electric connection to the house of the petitioner either from the southern gram panchayat road if found suitable or from the northern gram panchayat road through the passage to the house of the petitioner but preference be made to lay the lines from the southern gram panchayat road through the 6’ passage to the house of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order and the o.p. nos. 3 to 6 are directed not to obstruct such laying of electric connection to the house of the petitioner and the o.ps. failing to act and conduct as per the directions of the Forum the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution and also the petitioner as well as the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are to take necessary assistance from the local police who would render police assistance in laying such electric connection from the gram panchayat road to the house of the petitioner through the passage.
No order is passed as to compensation and cost as deficiency is not established.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
