Order 1. Heard Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H. Kharmih, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Factual matrix:-- The petitioner is the owner in possession of the plot of land at Mawlai Umjajew and the said plot of land belongs to (Late) Emli Thngkhiew and after her death, the petitioner, by virtue of being the Khadduh (youngest daughter), has inherited the said plot of land as per the Khasi customary law. The said plot of land is bounded as follows: East : Shillong-Guwahati Road and forest land of Kharkongor clan West : Umiam Lake North : Government Forest South : Private land of Mylliem Umlong The family of the petitioner as early as 1930 had set up an alcohol distillery in the name and style of “Umjajew Distillery” in the said plot of land. The workers and employees of the said distillery were provided residential accommodation in the said distillery complex i.e. within the said plot of land and the distillery was discontinued since 1990. The Excise Office, which was opened in the said plot of land also vacated the said plot of land after the closure of the distillery. The Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong under the letter dated 25.11.2005 forwarded the land certificate issued by the Syiem of Mylliem vide letter dated 29.07.2005 regarding the handing over of the vacant Excise Head Quarter at Mawlai Umjajew. For easy reference, the said letter dated 25.11.2005 (Annexure - 2 to writ petition) is quoted hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EXCISE) EAST KHASI HILLS SHILLONG No. K/Ex/42/92/62, Dated Shillong, the 25th November, 2005 To, The Commissioner of Excise Meghalaya, Shillong. Subject : Handing over of the possession of vacant Excise Quarter at Umjajew. Ref:- (1) No. MEG/EE.29/2001/26 dated 10.6.2005. (2) Memo No. K/Ex/42/92/60-A dated 24.6.2005. Sir, With reference to the subject stated above and letters under reference, I have the honour to forward herewith the copies of the letter submitted by Shri. H.S. Thangkhiew along with land Certificate issued by the Syiem of Mylliem dated 29.7.05, which is self explanatory, regarding the Handing over of vacant Excise quarter at Umjajew. The same is recommended for handing over after fulfillment of formalities. Yours faithfully, (D.P. WAHLANG) IAS Deputy Commissioner East Khasi Hills District Shillong.” 3. The same is recommended for handing over after fulfillment of formalities. Yours faithfully, (D.P. WAHLANG) IAS Deputy Commissioner East Khasi Hills District Shillong.” 3. In the year 2008, it is stated that the some encroachers, who are occupying a portion of the said plot of land forcibly started taking illegal electricity from the existing pole which was installed to supply electricity to the erstwhile distillery on the said plot of land and accordingly, the petitioner made a complaint dated 10.03.2008 to the Assistant Engineer (Revenue) MeSEB Revenue Division-2, Shillong for taking necessary action against the illegal connection by causing inspection of the said plot of land of the petitioner. The said complaint was also followed by many complaints. Thereafter, on the basis of the said complaint against illegal connection of the electricity by the alleged encroachers of the petitioner’s said plot of land had been disconnected. Only in the month of February, 2011, the petitioner had learnt that the encroachers of the petitioner’s said plot of land started getting electricity connection. Again, the petitioner made a complaint dated 02.11.2011 to the Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Circle, M.E.C.L. (Me.S.E.B.), Lum Jingshai, Shillong for immediately stopping the supply of electricity to the said unauthorised encroachers of the petitioner’s said plot of land. Only on 03.11.2011, the petitioner was furnished a copy of the letter issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Distribution Circle, MeECL, Shillong dated 03.11.2011 to the Additional Chief Engineer (EZ), MeECL, Shillong that “as per the legal cell views vide letter under reference at SI. No. 2 it is stated that the Board may perhaps proceed on the basis of occupation and accordingly, connections may be given to them subject to necessary payment such as advance bill payment, etc.” 4. The petitioner again filed an objection dated 07.02.2013 to the Executive Engineers, Revenue Division, Shillong that “occupier of any premises” mentioned in Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 means the legal occupier and not illegal occupier. For easy reference, Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is quoted hereunder: “43. The petitioner again filed an objection dated 07.02.2013 to the Executive Engineers, Revenue Division, Shillong that “occupier of any premises” mentioned in Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 means the legal occupier and not illegal occupier. For easy reference, Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is quoted hereunder: “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 of commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission: Provided further that in case of a village on 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) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1): Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission. (3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default.” 5. It is the submission of Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that a person who forces himself into any part of the premises owned by the petitioner cannot be treated as an occupier of such premises for the purpose of Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003. Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel in support of his contention placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Samsul Haque Mollick v. CESC Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2006 Calcutta 73. Para 4 of the AIR in Samsul Haque Mollick case (supra) reads as follows: “4. Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel in support of his contention placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Samsul Haque Mollick v. CESC Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2006 Calcutta 73. Para 4 of the AIR in Samsul Haque Mollick case (supra) reads as follows: “4. In my view, the trade licence does not make the petitioner an occupier or a lawful occupant of any part of the premises. On payment of requisite fees any one can obtain a trade licence from the corporation. In my opinion, the expression “occupier” mentioned in S. 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, shall not include an unauthorized occupant of a premises, within the class of persons denoted by it. A person who forces himself into any part of a premises owned by someone else cannot be treated as an occupier of such premises for the purpose of S. 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. For being treated as such he must show that at some point of time in the past he was put into the occupation in question by the owner of the premises.” 6. The respondents also filed affidavit-in-opposition. It appears that the respondent had completely disowned their duties to find out prima facie as to whether the occupiers of the premises who applied for electricity are legal or illegal occupiers. Para 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition, which reads as follows: “That with regard to the averments made in paragraphs 9 and 13 of the petition it is submitted that it is not for the Respondent MeECL to find out whether the occupiers are legal or illegal occupiers but Power supply was considered on the basis of the provisions of law aforesaid as well as on the basis of applications of the occupiers of the premises.” It is the case of the respondents that the respondents are to give electricity to any occupiers of the land; this is not the object of the Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 inasmuch as the electricity is to be supplied only to the lawful occupiers of the premises and not to any persons, who said to be the occupiers of the premises. It is the bounden duty of the respondents to see if the occupiers, who filed the application for electricity is a lawful occupier or not. It is the bounden duty of the respondents to see if the occupiers, who filed the application for electricity is a lawful occupier or not. It is reiterated that there should be some documents to show prima facie that the occupier who filed the application for electricity is lawful occupier. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 does not contemplate that the electricity should be supplied to anybody who files application for giving electricity. 7. In the above factual backdrop, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Distribution Circle, MeECL, Shillong to find out prima facie as to whether the occupiers of the petitioner’s said plot of land applied electricity are lawful occupiers or not after giving opportunity to the parties i.e. petitioner, applicants/occupiers to put their respective cases. Unless and until the respondent No. 3 has decided this point, there should not be electricity to the occupiers of the petitioner’s said plot of land. 8. For convenience of the parties, it is made clear that the respondent No. 3 shall complete the whole exercise within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 9. With the above observations and directions, this petition is allowed. Petition allowed.