DATE OF FILING : 26.04.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 31.05.2016.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29.12.2016.
Sri Baidyanath Dolui,
son of late Babulal Dolui,
village & P.O. Nakole ( Dakshin ), P.S. Shyampur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711312………..……. …………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
- The Station Manager,
WBSEDCL, Bagnan II CCC 3133202,
Bagnan, Nuntia,
Howrah 711312.
- The Divisional Manager,
WBSEDCL, Howrah Uluberia ( D ) Division,
Uluberia, Banitala,
Howrah 711409…..………………...………………………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, Sri Baidyanath Dolui, against the o.ps., WBSEDCL, praying for a direction upon the o.ps. to supply new electric connection at the premises of the petitioner on the basis of his application and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that he applied for a new electric connection and submitted all related documents on 20.08.2015 in his premises which is situated at plot no. 473, khatian no. 321 of mouza Chaulia, P.S. Shyampur. He also deposited the quotation mentioned amount for service charges but the o.p. no. 1 sent a letter as on 06.04.2015 informing him that they would not be able to provide him new connection for non availability of LT infrastructure. On receiving the letter the petitioner wrote two letters to the o.p. no. 1 on 02.05.2015 and then on 14.07.2015 requesting him to supply new electric connection in his name stating particulars of his premises. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 wanted to harass the petitioner in violation of the law of the land and did not supply electric connection to the petitioner. Hence is this case.
- The case of the o.ps. WBSEDCL, is nothing but denial of the case of the petitioner and they further stated that to reduce the amount of monthly bill, the petitioner filed this case and applied for electric connection separately though living in the same family in the same premises and such a new connection cannot be allowed as the same would hamper the financial interest of the o.ps. Thus, the above case should be dismissed with costs.
- 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.Ps. 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 application form as well as the tax receipt of the Gram Pradhan and also certificate of the Panchayat Pradhan and also quotation of the WBSEDCL and the deposited money receipt for service charge and affidavit and the letters written by him to the o.ps. and all these documents stating the fact that the petitioner has been living separately in the said premises in separate mess as could be noticed from the panchayat documents and also from his affidavit before Notary Public of Uluberia. It is further found that he has been residing in the said premises being co-owner and by an amicable arrangement with other family members of the family has been residing separately in a demarcated area. It is also noticed from the certificate of the Panchayat Pradhan when he received taxes from the petitioner separately for the same premises. Thus the objection raised by the o.ps. that the petitionerliving in the same house and the petitioner wants to have a separate connection for the purpose of reducing the electricity charges, is not true and thus he is entitled to get separate electric connection as is the law of the land laid down of our Hon’ble High Court as well as Apex Court.
- Our Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Khamura vs. Nayan Mallick and others opined 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 parent High Court also in the case Abhimunya Majumdar vs. 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.
Thus keeping in mind the submissions of the ld. counsels of both sides as well as the contents of the petition as well as the written version, this Forum finds that the petitioner is entitled to electric connection as he had became successful in proving his case.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. No. 153 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest without costs against the O.Ps. WBSEDCL.
The O.Ps., WBSEDCL, are directed to render fresh electric connection in the premises of the petitioner by installing new electric meter within 30 days from the date of this order.
No order is passed as to cost and compensation as deficiency is not established as the petitioner did not produce these documents before the o.ps.
The complainant is at liberty to put the final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
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.
