DATE OF FILING : 15-06-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 16-07-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 18-10-2012.
Sadagar Mondal,
son of late Baburam Mondal,
residing at Village & P.O. JOargari, P.S. Uluberia,
District –Howrah---------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The Divisional Manager,
W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Uluberia ( D ) Division
Banitabla, Uluberia,
Howrah.
2. The Station Manager,
Birshibpur, W.B.S.E.D.C.L.
Birshibpur, Howrah.
3. Sri Ajay Gayan,
son of late Panchu Gayan,
of Village & P.O. Joargari, P.S. Uluberia,
District – Howrah. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for passing necessary direction upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 for immediate effecting the new service connection
of the petitioner house under R.S. Dag No. 4322, RS. Khatian no. 226 of Mouza Joargari, P.S. Uluberia, District – Howrah, and to restrain o.p. no. 3 from raising any obstruction against such installation.
2. The complainant applied for new electric connection before the o.p. no.
1, WBSEDCL Authority having deposited Rs. 200/- as earnest money to his occupied portion. The WBSEDCL Authority inspected the premises but the same could not be carried out due to objection raised by o.p no. 3 and free access was not available to the existing premises. Finding no other alternative complainant has lodged this complaint before the Hon’ble Forum.
3. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2, WBSEDCL Authority filed their written version
stated that the complainant filed an application for domestic connection. Attempt was made for conducting inspection at the complainant occupied portion but could not be accelerated due to objection raised by o.p. no. 3 for which free access was not available at the complainant premises and the same have been intimated to the complainant vide letters dated 06-01-2012 and 01-06-2012. They have no objection for effecting the new service connection if the o.p. no. 3 is restrained.
4. The o.p. no. 3 vide their written version allegedly stated that the claim of
the complainant in respect of erecting electric connection through and over the alleged passage is nothing but to acquire the right in disguise and to grab the property illegally / willfully claimed the alleged passage for their egress and ingress and the complainant has no right for using his property meant for others for which if the service connection is to be affected the right, title and interest of the objector seriously affected.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant applied for new service connection in his premises under R.S. Dag No. 4322, R.S. Khatian No. 226 of Mouza - Joargari, P.S. Uluberia, District – Howrah, after depositing necessary earnest money to the o.p. no. 1. The o.p. no. 3 restrained o.p. no. 1 for conducting the site inspection on the plea that the existing 3 feet common passage in which electric service line will pass through has no right, title and interest upon the said 3 feet passage of the complainant.
7. We have carefully gone through the decree passed in the Court of Munsif at Uluberia against T.S. No. 273 of 1952 dated 19-08-1953 wherein it is specifically mentioned to use the 3 feet wide passage for his ( here in the complainant ) egress and ingress and the same considered as complainant’s property in which the complainant wants his new electric connection over the said passage.
8. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 vide their written version stated that they are ready to effect the electric service connection to the complainant’s premises. Their inability to effect the service connection was due to objection raised by the 3rd Party ( herein o.p. no. 3 ) for which way-leave is to be submitted by the complainant. In this connection we refer Section 43(1) and 43(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein sub-section (3) of the said Section provides that on failure to effect such supply within the specified period would entail penal consequences. It is, therefore, untenable in law to suggest that the statutory duty on the part of the licensee can be avoided on the specious plea that the applicant has failed to provide necessary access for supply of electric energy. In the event the licensee find that there are obstruction or difficulties in effecting supply and the applicant is unable to provide way leave, it would be the duty of the licensee to undertake necessary works as possible under Part VIII of the Act, 2003 and read with the Rule of the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006 to ensure that such supply is effected.
In the result, we are of the view that this is a fit case where prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 61 of 2012 ( HDF 61 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest without costs against o.p. nos. 1 & 2, WBSEDCL Authority and dismissed without cost against o.p. no. 3.
The o.p. nos. 1 & 2, WBSEDCL Authority be directed to provide new electric connection through separate meter to the complainant at the premises as mentioned in the schedule within 60 days after confirming all technical formalities together with realization of necessary costs involved for effecting the new service connection from the date of this order.
The o.p. no. 3 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during installation of the meter.
In case of any illegal objection raised by any person, complainant and o.p. nos. 1 & 2, WBSEDCL Authority shall approach to the local police station for help.
No order as to compensation.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
