Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 556 (CAL)

Aloke Kumar Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal

2017-06-19

HARISH TANDON

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. It is really unfortunate that a person who was all along paying the electric charges has faced disconnection without raising a bill upon him or the notice for non-payment of electricity charges. It is obligatory on the part of the Licensee Company to raise a bill and before proceeding to disconnect the supply of electricity must serve a notice upon the consumer. 2. In the instant case, the meter originally stood in the name of one Satyaranjan Kundu, who happened to be the landlord of the premises no. 22/1/1. Jogendra Basak Road, Kolkata – 700 036. It is also not in dispute that the said landlord died and an online application was made by the petitioner for allotting the said meter to him as he was enjoying electricity therefrom during the lifetime of the deceased landlord. 3. The Licensee Company processed the said application and changes the consumer name. Subsequently, the electric bill was raised upon the petitioner on monthly basis and it is not in dispute that the petitioner paid the same. 4. The dispute arose when the Licensee Company stopped raising the electricity bill upon the petitioner. An explanation is sought to be offered by the Licensee Company that previously the said meter stood in the name of Satyaranjan Kundu and, therefore, the same is required to be allotted to his son. It is further submitted that the said son approached the Licensee Company and thereafter the consumer name was changed and the bill was raised upon the recorded consumer. 5. Since the recorded consumer failed and neglected to pay the electric charges, which is to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- and odd, the Licensee Company has disconnected the supply of electricity through the said meter. 6. I am not impressed with such submission for the simple reason that the Licensee Company ought to have served a notice upon the petitioner being the recorded consumer before venturing to change the consumer name on the basis of an application filed by the son of the erstwhile recorded consumer. If the bill was never raised upon the petitioner and it appears that the same was raised upon the son of the erstwhile consumer, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer as he cannot be branded as a negligent and careless in making the payment of electricity charges. 7. If the bill was never raised upon the petitioner and it appears that the same was raised upon the son of the erstwhile consumer, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer as he cannot be branded as a negligent and careless in making the payment of electricity charges. 7. The statutory authorities are not supposed to act as per their whims and convenience. They have to travel within the circumference of the statutory provisions and cannot overstep the same. Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 makes it imperative on the Licensee Company to give notice in writing by not less than fifteen clear days to a person who neglects to pay any charges of electricity before proceeding to disconnect the supply on the ground of default of payment of electricity charges. The word ‘consumer’ is defined under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to mean any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the government and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the government or such other person, as the case may be. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner satisfies the definition of a consumer and is a person who cannot be said to be negligent in payment of electric charges. Since no notice was ever served upon the petitioner but the action of the authorities in disconnecting the supply on alleged non-payment of electricity charges is illegal and contrary to the said mandatory provision, this Court, therefore, directs the Licensee Company to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner immediately without demanding any charges on whatsoever account. 9. Since the restoration of supply is directed because of noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act, it would not operate as a fetter on the part of the Licensee Company in complying the provisions as indicate above before proceeding to disconnect the supply of electricity for non-payment of electric charges. 10. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. 11. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.