JUDGMENT This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by one Ashim Das challenging the order No.71 dated 1.10.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Bankura in Title Suit No.58 of 2006. 2. It would appear that the present petitioner as plaintiff of the suit by filing an application in the Court below prayed for installation of separate electric connection in the ‘Kha’ Schedule Property which happens to be part of ‘Ka’ Schedule Property, but the learned Court below upon hearing both sides and also considering the circumstances rejected the petitioner’s application for electric connection. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order impugned, petitioner has come up before this Court praying for setting aside the said order and for obtaining an order of electric connection as prayed for in the Court below. 4. Mr. P.P.Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to some documents being copy of rent receipt in respect of Holding No.15 for the period from 17.9.2004 to 17.9.2005 at the rate of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) per month issued by one Bijay Krishna Das as also municipal tax receipt dated 16.8.2007 as well as on receipt in the name of Bijay Das issued by Bankura Municipality on 19.1.2007 emphatically urges that his client being the occupier of the Holding No.15 of ‘Kha’ Schedule Property which is the part of the ‘Ka’ Schedule Property is entitled to have electric connection for the sake of carrying on his business on electrical goods therein. In support of his contention he has drawn this Court’s attention to the contents of provision laid down in Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and strongly contends that in view of the position of law laid down in said Section, his client being the occupier of the premises referred to above is entitled to have electric connection. Further in support of his contention he has relied upon a decision reported in 2009 Volume 2 CHN Page 325 and strongly submits that learned Court below while passing the order rejecting the prayer for electric connection committed mistake and accordingly the order impugned needs to be set aside and his client may be allowed to have electric connection as prayed for. 5. On the other hand, Mr. 5. On the other hand, Mr. D. Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants/opposite parties argues that learned Court below while passing the impugned order committed no mistake or illegality inasmuch as the petitioner is not in occupation of the Holding No.15 wherein electricity connection has been sought for. He further submits that the documents filed and relied upon on behalf of the petitioner are fabricated and not dependable and as such the impugned order cannot be called in question which needs no interference by this Court. Some relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 need to be taken into consideration: “ Section (42). Duties of distribution licensees and open access.—(1) it shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act.” “Section (43). Duty to supply on request.—(1) Every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply: Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission: Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.” (2) …… (3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within theperiod specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default.” 6. In view of the provisions laid down in Section 43 of the Electricity Act, occupier of any premises may have electricity connection to the concerned premises. In view of the provisions laid down in Section 43 of the Electricity Act, occupier of any premises may have electricity connection to the concerned premises. In this context, it may be pertinent to point out that in course of argument learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties draws this Court’s attention to the content of copies of sale-deed dated 1.9.2005 executed by Shyama Prasad Das in favour of Shri Ram Niranjan Dhanuka and Bimal Kumar Dhanuka (opposite parties) as also one report submitted by Pleader Commissioner appointed by Court and emphatically urges that the petitioner being not the lawful occupier of the premises in question is not entitled to have electric connection as sought for. In view of the decision reported in AIR 2008 Cal 29 , the lawful occupier of any portion of any premises is entitled to have supply of electricity. 7. On scrutiny of the materials-on-record, it would be evident that the petitioner has prayed for electric connection in Holding No.15 as occupier of the same for the sake of carrying on electrical goods business. The copy of Bankura Municipality and certificate of enlistment dated 16.8.2007 give clear indication that petitioner Ashim Das is occupying Holding No.15 of Mohalla Natunganj, the other receipt issued by Bankura Municipality on 19.1.2007 goes to show that Bijay Das is assessee of the Holding No.15, paid Rs.490/-. From the Commissioner’s report, it would appear that petitioner is in possession of some portion of the suit premises, of course, there is no explicit indication that the petitioner is occupying Holding No.15 or 16, although learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that petitioner is in occupation of Holding No.16 and not 15. 8. From the documents relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in support of occupation of Holding No.15, it may be prima facie said that petitioner is the occupant of Holding No.15 of ‘Kha’ Schedule Property. In this context, it may be noted down that the Commissioner’s report submitted in Court has not yet been accepted and as such the Commissioner’s report cannot be fully taken into consideration for the sake of determining as to whether the petitioner is in occupation of Holding No.15 or 16 or elsewhere. 9. In this context, it may be noted down that the Commissioner’s report submitted in Court has not yet been accepted and as such the Commissioner’s report cannot be fully taken into consideration for the sake of determining as to whether the petitioner is in occupation of Holding No.15 or 16 or elsewhere. 9. Therefore, having considered the submission made on behalf of the respective parties as also regard being had to the materials placed before this Court, as well as considering the position of law this Court is of the view that petitioner being possesser and occupier of Holding No.15 is entitled to have electric connection as prayed for. 10. In the circumstances, petitioner is allowed an opportunity to apply before West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Bankura for having electricity connection in holding No.15 under Ward No.3 of Bankura Municipality, P.S. & Dist. Bankura within 3 weeks from date and if such application is filed within the stipulated period, concerned Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. will dispose of the said application within a period of 3 weeks according to law. With the above observation, the application is disposed of. 11. I, however, make no order as to costs. 12. Let xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties expeditiously.