Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 277 (CAL)

Nathuni Giri v. CESC Limited

2015-03-20

NADIRA PATHERYA

body2015
JUDGMENT : By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks forthwith removal of the meter installed on 5th July, 2013 in favour of the private respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of premises no.16B, Dr. Rajendra Road, Kolkata – 700 020 and the private respondent resides at premises no.16A, Dr. Rajendra Road, Kolkata – 700 020. 3. On an application filed by the private respondent which application is without the consent of the petitioner supply has been effected to the private respondent on 5th July, 2013. On the day when such supply was effected, the petitioner was not present in the subject premise. Padlock was broken of the meter board position. 4. The petitioner is the owner of a tea stall which is in front of the petitioner’s premise, while the petitioner resides at premises no.16B, Dr. Rajendra Road, Kolkata – 700 020. The private respondent is also not a tenant of the petitioner. Therefore, the question of becoming an illegal occupant does not arise and the supply effected be removed more so in view of Regulation 3.2.1 of the 2010 Regulations. 5. The bills which have been raised on the private respondent is in respect of 16A, Dr. Rajendra Road, Kolkata – 700 020. As there is no connection between 16B, Dr. Rajendra Road, Kolkata – 700 020 and 16A, Dr. Rajendra Road, Kolkata – 700 020 being the premises of the petitioner, the licensing company be directed to remove the installation from the petitioner’s premise. 6. None appears on behalf of the private respondent. No affidavit has also been filed and, in fact, service has returned with the endorsement refused. Affidavit of service be kept with the record. 7. Counsel for the licensing company submits that on an application filed by the private respondent an inspection was made and thereafter supply effected. No objection was raised either at the time of inspection or at the time of installation of supply. 8. The pleadings of the petitioner is at variance. In one place it has been stated that the private respondent has encroached the premises of the petitioner forcefully while the private respondent has been described as an unknown person or trespasser. 9. Therefore, in view of the facts pleaded disputes has arisen and this application warrants no order. 10. 8. The pleadings of the petitioner is at variance. In one place it has been stated that the private respondent has encroached the premises of the petitioner forcefully while the private respondent has been described as an unknown person or trespasser. 9. Therefore, in view of the facts pleaded disputes has arisen and this application warrants no order. 10. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the petitioner seeks removal of the private respondent’s meter from the said premises. The connection taken by the private respondent is commercial in nature. It is true that the private respondent resides at premises no.16A, Dr. Rajendra Road, Kolkata – 700 020 and the petitioner resides at premises no.16B, Dr. Rajendra Road, Kolkata – 700 020. 11. It is true that the petitioner has a tea shop in front of the private respondent’s residence and it is true that supply is needed for running the tea stall. Therefore, the supply in respect of which the petitioner has a grievance is to the tea shop and the petitioner has alleged illegal encroachment of his public way which prevents him from egress and ingress. 12. In paragraph 9, he has described the private respondent as an unknown trespasser. The very word ‘trespasser’ would mean an illegal occupant. Therefore, the status of the private respondent is not known and it cannot be decided in this writ. The petitioner has also alleged that the Annexure in Form-A was submitted by the private respondent by forging his signature and address. If this be true, then this issue can also not be decided in this jurisdiction. 13. The connection was granted on 5th July, 2013, and the procedure to be followed by the licensing company is to first make inspection and thereafter install meter. The petitioner’s absence at the time of installation and knowledge only after installation cannot be accepted. 14. On 10th August, 2013 a letter was received from the petitioner by the licensing company to which a reply was given and in such letter, it has been admitted that there has been compliance of all statutory requirements by the private respondent. The petitioner has not annexed the letter dated 10th August, 2013 to this writ petition. Therefore, one does not know the contents of such letter and the first objection raised by the petitioner is in September, 2013. 15. The petitioner has not annexed the letter dated 10th August, 2013 to this writ petition. Therefore, one does not know the contents of such letter and the first objection raised by the petitioner is in September, 2013. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons as several disputed questions of facts has arisen, this writ petition merits no order and is accordingly dismissed. 16. As the application of the private respondent was found in order, the connection was given to him. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.