ORDER NO.4 DATED 01.07.2014
Ld. Advocates for the Appellants and the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Respondent No.4 are present. Respondent No.4 files vakalatnama in favour of Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Ld. Advocate. Appellants file a track report showing that notice to the Respondent No.3, in respect of M.A. No. 348/2014 is properly delivered. This day is fixed for hearing of the said M.A. Consequently, notice to the Respondent No.3 is taken for granted. The appeal, along with the M.A. No. 348/2014, is taken up for hearing.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellants submits that in respect of stay order granted in favour of the Appellants, there has been willful violation by the Respondents in the matter and the electric connection has been given thereby. The Appellants had no objection of taking electricity by the Respondent No.4, namely, Prabhat Kumar Paul, through an undisputed passage, but not through the property of these Appellants. There has been no order vacating the stay in the matter. So, the Respondents are liable both in respect of the appeal and the instant M.A. The impugned order for this Appeal is not a rightful one.
Ld. Advocate for the WBSEDCL submits that it is a private dispute and that it has since complied the order passed in the matter in EA No. 256/2013.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.4 submits that no violation took place and the order of the executing forum has since been complied by the WBSEDCL. There has been appeal against the order of the Ld. District Forum passed in Case No. 2/2010 by FA No. 461/2012 by WBSEDCL, which has been dismissed by this Commission, affirming the order of the Ld. District Forum. As such, there stood no predicament for the WBSEDCL in the matter to comply the order passed by the Ld. District Forum, which has now been done in EA No. 256/2013.
On a view of the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum, it is found that the same is in consonance with the order passed by the Ld. District Forum in the original case being no. 2/2010, which has been confirmed by this Commission in FA No. 461/2012. Accordingly, the same is not to be disturbed, and is sustainable.
In respect of the M.A. No. 348/2014, it has been mentioned that such violation took place on 03.06.2014. Record shows that at the relevant point of time, there exists no stay granted in this appeal against the operation of the impugned order. So, no violation is found as such.
Accordingly, both the appeal and the instant M.A. being without any substance and merit, are dismissed.