JUDGMENT : - This writ petition is directed against a letter dated August 18, 1997 being annexure 'H' to the writ petition and also for restoration of the electric supply line of the petitioner. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is a consumer in respect of a separate electric supply line. This case has little background. Initially, a writ petition was moved in this Court and that writ petition was registered as. C.C. No. 122 of 1996 (Prahlad Roy Goenka vs. R.P. Goenka & Ors.). An order was passed on July 8, 1997 in the previous writ petition by the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice (as His Lordship then was). By the said order His Lordship was pleased to direct the CESC Authority to dispose 'of the disputes and/or grievances of the writ petitioner which resulted in disconnection of his electric supply by the CESC Authority. Pursuant to the said order, the present impugned order has been passed. It appears that the Dy. General Manager (Com-LT) has come to a finding that the writ petitioner herein' is responsible for making payment of the alleged dues on account of electric supply line to one Omkarmal Goenka. The writ petitioner is the son of said Omkarmal Goenka. Mr. Debasish Kundu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this order is palpably bad in law and also on fact. He alleged that the alleged dues on account of the another consumer cannot be attributed to his client who is a separately recorded consumer. The privity of contract of with the two separate persons are different, so also the rights and obligations arising out of this contract. Admittedly, there is no outstanding dues on account of the electric supply line of the writ petitioner. It is the allegation of the CESC Authority that because of the unauthorized supply of electric supply line from the installation of the writ petitioner to Omkarmal Goenka, this disconnection has been effected and this is permissible under the law. Mr. Kundu has relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts on the point of the liability of a consumer to the Electricity Authority, viz. AIR. 1990(1) SCC 731 , AIR 1980 A.P. 12 , 95 J.T.(1) 626 and AIR 1998 Cal 351 . Mr. Kundu has relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts on the point of the liability of a consumer to the Electricity Authority, viz. AIR. 1990(1) SCC 731 , AIR 1980 A.P. 12 , 95 J.T.(1) 626 and AIR 1998 Cal 351 . Therefore he submits, if there is an alleged dues, the same can be recovered from Omkarmal Goenka, who was responsible for payment and for the said reasons the writ petitioner cannot be asked to make payment. Moreover, there is no authority and/or justification under the law to realise the amount from the writ petitioner on account of some other dues. 3. Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the CESC Authority submits that it is a fact finding of the competent authority in terms of the Court's order which has come to a finding that the writ petitioner is involved in the matter of illegal consumption of electrical energy. After disconnection of Omkarmal's line, the writ petitioner's consumption was abnormally raised and therefore it suggested that it was the writ petitioner who was responsible in helping the defaulting consumer to enjoy electrical energy and also not to make payment of dues of the electrical energy consumed. Since the writ petitioner is one of the joint tort-feasors, therefore, this amount can be realised under the law from the writ petitioner. Since there are certain dues and claims payable by the writ petitioner to the CESC Authority, the question of restoration of electric supply line does not arise. 4. Having heard the respective submissions of the learned Lawyers and considering the materials placed before me, it appears to me that impugned decision does not appear to be supportive by any material whereby the nexus of the writ petitioner with Omkarmal Goenka, being the defaulting consumer, can be found. It appears that on the basis of the surmise and conjecture CESC official being the lay-man cannot possibly come to a better finding than this one, but it appears that this is a case of civil disputes in nature, whether any wrong has been done or not or whether the writ petitioner is one of the joint tort-feasors or not that cannot possibly be decided by him. Even, assuming that the findings of the aforementioned official is accepted to be correct, still then, under the law the writ petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability of another consumer. I accept the submission of Mr. Kundu on this point and hold relying on the aforesaid decision that the writ petitioner cannot be made liable for payment of another consumer. The contracts of CESC with the consumers are different and therefore the rights and obligations are also different. The aforesaid ratio is supported by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 1990 (1) SCC 731 in para 23 and this principle has been reiterated by our Supreme Court once again in a case reported in 1995 J.T. Vol. X. 626. The Division Bench of our Court has decided the aforesaid principle in a case under the Indian Telegraph Act on the question of disconnection of telephone line. The said decision is reported in AIR 1998 Cal 351 which says that the liability of one subscriber cannot be attributed to another. The same is also the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and I find from a decision of that High Court reported in AIR 1980 A.P. 12 in para 6. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case I set aside the order passed by the Deputy General Manager. However, the CESC Authority would be entitled to realise this amount from the erstwhile consumer, namely, Omkarmal Goenka and/or his heirs and legal representatives if he is not alive by filing proper suit. Since there is no dues as against the writ petitions in connection with his individual supply line, the line of the writ petitioner shall be restored within a period of seven days from the date of communication of this order upon payment of the reconnection charges and upon certificate being submitted as to the fitness of the supply line. 6. The writ is allowed accordingly. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties expeditiously on the ususal undertaking. 9. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment on the usual undertaking. Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.