JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated January 11, 2012 is seeking a mandamus commanding CESC, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, to reconnect supply of electricity to the premises in question. 2. ADMITTEDLY, one Tulsi Charan Maity was the consumer of the connection in question. The petitioner is Tulsi's nephew. As will appear from the document at p.15 Tulsi died on September 16, 2009. The petitioner was consuming electricity through the connection and paying the bills raised by CESC periodically. 3. ON March 16, 2011 the petitioner instituted a suit against the private respondent (Samir Kumar Ghosh). Tulsi was Samir's tenant inducted in the premises in question. The Civil Court passed an order dated March 16, 2011 restraining Samir "from making any disturbances in enjoying the electrical energy through the meter nos. 2642209 and 2344592 till April 16, 2011," and saying that the order would not prevent CESC from taking steps in case of violation of any rule under the "West Bengal Electricity Act." 4. THE petitioner claims that he sent an undated letter (at p.17) informing CESC that in violation of the order of the Civil Court supply of electricity to the premises was disconnected on May 4, 2011. Now he is alleging that CESC has not reconnected the supply. 5. COUNSEL for the licensee submits as follows. CESC received a letter dated February 21, 2011 from Tulsi who expressed his intention to surrender the connection through both the meters in question. Since Tulsi was the registered consumer, CESC effected disconnection through the two meters. When it was informed that the Civil Court had passed an injunction, its people visited the premises several times for reconnecting the supply, but for resistance put up by some people the supply could not be reconnected. 6. COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that since CESC wrongfully disconnected the supply, the petitioner is entitled to an order directing it to reconnect the supply breaking and removing the resistance with police help. 7. FOR passing an order directing reconnection it has to be decided first that the letter dated February 21, 2011 was not written by Tulsi. It is also necessary to examine whether CESC made necessary inquiry for ascertaining whether the letter dated February 21, 2011 was actually written by Tulsi. 8. THE petitioner's case is that Tulsi had died as back as September 16, 2009. It is also necessary to examine whether CESC made necessary inquiry for ascertaining whether the letter dated February 21, 2011 was actually written by Tulsi. 8. THE petitioner's case is that Tulsi had died as back as September 16, 2009. Considering this fact, the Civil Court passed an order of injunction. If Tulsi was dead on February 21, 2011, then the question is who wrote the letter dated February 21, 2011. 9. THOUGH the supply was disconnected as back as May 4, 2011, the petitioner alleging violation of the order of the Civil Court did not approach that Court with an application under O.39, R.2A CPC; nor did he allege that CESC wrongfully disconnected the supply. In his representation he did not make any allegation against CESC. He has brought this WP only on January 11, 2012. 10. ON these facts, I do not think power under art.226 should be exercised for adjudicating the question necessary for deciding whether the petitioner is entitled to reconnection of the supply. His remedy, if any, is before the Civil Court that passed the order of injunction. He is also free to approach the Criminal Court, if he has reason to say that the letter dated February 21, 2011 has been fabricated by someone interested in ensuring disconnection of supply of electricity to the premises in question. For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs.