Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1404 (CAL)

Radha Rani Dutta v. CESC Limited

2011-11-08

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2011
JUDGMENT Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. 1. The petitioners in this art. 226 petition dated November 2, 2011 are seeking the following principal relief: a) A direction be given upon the respondent CESC and its men and agent to give undertaking that in case of default in payment of the electricity charges by the respondent No. 4 for such connection in question, in future the respondent CESC Limited will be debarred to adjust the said outstanding due amount for giving reconnection/fresh electric connection to any other applicant of the said premises in question, i.e. 12/B, Srimanta Dey Lane, Police-Station-Bowbazar, Kolkata - 700 012. The fourth respondent (Manik Jana) applied to CESC, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, for supply of electricity to the premises in question. Manik claimed that as an occupier of the premises he was entitled to supply. 2. The second petitioner filed an application before the Executive Magistrate under section 144(2) Cr.PC that Manik, a trespasser, was making wrongful attempts to take supply of electricity to the premises in question. 3. Thereafter the first petitioner wrote a letter asking CESC not to give supply of electricity to Manik. By a letter dated October 22, 2011 CESC informed the first petitioner that she was wrongfully preventing people of the licensee from giving supply of electricity to Manik. 4. Under the circumstances, this petition has been filed stating the case in para. 11, which is quoted below: 11. That your petitioners contend and submit that although as per statutory provision and decision of the Hon'ble Court, as per provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 even a trespasser is entitled to get electricity and in such circumstances, the petitioners are raising objection against such supply mainly on two counts: firstly, such electric connection will not confer any right, title and interest over the premises in question in favour of the respondent No. 4 and secondly, in case of default in payment of the electricity charges by the respondent No. 4 for such connection, in future the respondent CESC Limited will be debarred to adjust the said outstanding due amount for giving reconnection/fresh electric connection to any other applicant of the said premises in question. 5. 5. It is evident from the case stated in para 11 that the petitioners want CESC not to give supply of electricity to Manik for the reasons that if supply is given, then it will create Manik's right, title or interest in the property, and also that if Manik is in default on outstanding energy charge, then in future other occupiers of the premises will not get supply without first liquidating Manik's liability. 6. In view of the provisions of section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, Manik, evidently in settled possession of the property in question, is entitled to supply of electricity. 7. It is not known how supply, if given, can create for him a right, title or interest in the property. It is not known either how the petitioners, if not the beneficiary of the supply, will be prevented from taking fresh connection in future, if Manik keeps outstanding energy charge unpaid. 8. The petition has been filed, evidently, seeking certain clarification from the Writ Court. The petitioners are asking the Writ Court to put certain conditions on CESC, if it decides to give supply of electricity to Manik. No provision of law entitles the petitioners to seek a clarification of the nature stated in para 11 of the petition. Nor does any provision of law entitle them to call upon CESC to give the undertaking they want. It is evident that the petitioners have brought this petition for enforcement of non-existent right. In my opinion, filing of such a petition as this amounts to abuse of the process of Court. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified Xerox. Petition dismissed.