JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated December 23,2011 is seeking a mandamus commanding CESC, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, to give her supply of electricity to the premises in question. 2. THE case of the petitioner is that though as an occupier of the premises she is entitled to supply of electricity and CESC is willing to give the supply, for wrongful resistance put up by the private respondents CESC is unable to give the supply. 3. AFTER making the application for supply and alleging failure on the part of CESC to give the supply in the discharge of its duties under s.43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the petitioner moved a WP No.20989(W) of 2011 before this Court under art.226. By a decision dated December 9, 2011 the WP was disposed of relegating the petitioner to the Civil and Criminal Courts. 4. THE decision dated December 9, 2011 in WP No.20989 (W) of 2011 is quoted below: "The Court: The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated December 7,2011 is seeking the following principal relief: "a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their men, agent or sub-ordinates in office to show cause as to why the new domestic connection should not be effected by installing a separate meter in favour of the petitioner in the premises in question forthwith." Claiming that as an occupier of the premises in question she is entitled to supply of electricity, the petitioner applied to CESC, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. The licensee decided to give supply and accordingly engaged its people to effect supply. By a letter dated November 30, 2011at p.19) the licensee informed the petitioner that for resistance put up by some people, the people engaged by it could not effect the supply. Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows. Since the licensee did not disclose the names of the persons putting up resistance to supply to the petitioner, it is not possible for the petitioner to make the persons party to this case. In view of the provisions of s.163 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the licensee was under an obligation to ascertain in what capacity the people resisting supply were putting up the resistance. On the facts, this Court should direct the police to break the resistance and give the petitioner supply. In view of the provisions of s.163 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the licensee was under an obligation to ascertain in what capacity the people resisting supply were putting up the resistance. On the facts, this Court should direct the police to break the resistance and give the petitioner supply. Nothing in s.163 of the Act and the regulations made under the Act empowers the licensee or creates its obligation to ascertain in what capacity the people resisting supply of electricity to the petitioner were putting up the resistance. Admittedly, the licensee deciding to give supply engaged its people to effect the supply. Hence it cannot be accepted that the licensee failed in discharge of its statutory obligation created by s.43 of the Act. Without ascertaining in what capacity the unidentified people were resisting supply of electricity to the petitioner to the premises in question the petitioner claims that she is the owner of the premises), order cannot be passed directing the police to break the resistance and help the people engaged by the licensee to effect supply to the premises. The licensee does not possess power to decide the question; nor do I find any reason to decide it in exercise of power under art.226. The question is to be decided only by the Civil and Criminal Courts; and since the petitioner is giving the impression that some unidentified people are resisting the supply of electricity to her, instead of approaching the High Court under art.226 against the licensee she should have lodged complaint with the Criminal Court seeking relief according to law. For these reasons, I dispose of the WP relegating the petitioner to the Civil and Criminal Courts. No costs. Certified xerox." 5. ACCEPTING the decision dated December 9, 2011 disposing of her WP, instead of approaching the Civil and Criminal Courts, the petitioner sent a letter dated December 14,2011at p.41) to the District Engineer concerned of CESC stating, claiming and requesting as follows: "With reference to the above subject, I wish to inform you that problems in my above mentioned premises has been solved. And now access to the meter board position is available freely. Therefore I would request your good office to kindly proceed on the matter and arrange to install the meter at our site (27 Chowdhury Lane, Kolkata-700 004) at the earliest." 6. And now access to the meter board position is available freely. Therefore I would request your good office to kindly proceed on the matter and arrange to install the meter at our site (27 Chowdhury Lane, Kolkata-700 004) at the earliest." 6. THE petitioner claims that on receipt of her letter dated December 14,2011 people engaged by CESC visited the premises on December 21,2011, but could not effect supply for resistance put up by the private respondents with the help of some unknown antisocial elements. Making this allegation (para.12) she brought this fresh WP on December 23,2011 before the Vacation Bench that directed CESC to inspect the premises once again and file report before the Regular Bench. 7. IN compliance with the order of the Vacation Bench dated December 27, 2011 CESC inspected the premises once again and has submitted a report dated January 7, 2012 stating that it could not effect supply to the petitioner installing a separate meter using the existing meter board and connection due to non-availability of access to the installations and objections raised by the present occupier of a portion of the premises. 8. MR. Mukherjee appearing for the fourth respondent has submitted that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in this WP and also in the previous WP; and that in the face of the decision disposing of the previous WP relegating the petitioner to the Civil and Criminal Courts, this WP could not be filed at all. His submission is that the petitioner has exercised fraud on the Court. 9. HIS further submissions are these. The owners of the property have instituted a suit against the fourth respondent. The suit is pending. After the decision dated December 9, 2011 in WP No.20989 (W) of 2011 the petitioner has filed an application in the suit under O.22, R.10 CPC. Questioning the validity of the agreement for sale under which the petitioner is claiming ownership, one of the owners of the property has filed a suit against the other owners and the petitioner. Such suit is also pending. 10. MR. Bhattacharyya appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows. Questioning the validity of the agreement for sale under which the petitioner is claiming ownership, one of the owners of the property has filed a suit against the other owners and the petitioner. Such suit is also pending. 10. MR. Bhattacharyya appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows. Since inspection of the premises by CESC on the basis of the petitioner's letter dated December 14, 2011, with which an order of a Division Bench of this Court was supplied to CESC, and resistance put up by the fourth respondent at the time of inspection gave rise to a fresh cause of action, the petitioner became entitled to file this WP. 11. THERE is nothing to show that between December 9, 2011 and December 14,2011 any event happened suggesting that resistance previously put up by the private respondents was not likely to be put up again, if fresh steps were taken for effecting supply of electricity to the premises. It is not that during this period any Court passed any order showing that the problems stood resolved. 12. WITH a view to avoiding the effect of the decision of this Court dated December 9, 2011 the letter dated December 14, 2011, making an evidently false assertion, was written only for laying foundation for moving afresh. The petitioner did not disclose anything connected with the two pending suits both of which were within her full knowledge. 13. THE order of the Division Bench obtained long ago by the plaintiffs in the suit against the fourth respondent could be relied on by the petitioner before the appropriate Civil and Criminal Courts where she could seek an order permitting her to take supply of electricity breaking and removing all resistance with police help. A fictitious cause of action was calculatedly generated by making false claims in the letter dated December 14. IT is an evident attempt to exercise fraud on Court. For these reasons, I dismiss the WP ordering the petitioner to pay CESC and the fourth respondent at the rate of Rs.1,000 costs within a fortnight. Certified xerox.