JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 13th November, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 18247 (W) of 2018 (Pravash Paul vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors.). 3. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with certain directions upon the Divisional Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Siliguri Town Division, District Darjeeling. 4. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 5. We had earlier directed the concerned authority of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited to file a report in the form of an affidavit disclosing all material facts relevant to the instant case, which are already on record. Consequently, a report in the form of an affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Siliguri Town Division, Siliguri, District Darjeeling. Relevant paragraphs of the said report are reproduced here in below:- “4. The Electricity High Tension over head Line was drawn in the year 1962(approximately) as gathered from various Official Sources. At the relevant point of time there was no objection from the petitioner's father, at least no such complaint record exists in our database. However, after lapse of more than 50 years that document is not available but it is made clear that the electricity line was drawn in accordance with law, rules framed there under. That apart, this High Tension Line is the main source of sub-station from which hugh [sic; read, huge] number of Industrial, Commercial as well as domestic connections are going on and dismantle of that supply line will serious effect to those connection holders. 5. Since the electricity High Tension line was drawn in accordance with law, the applicant under obligation to pay the shifting charges in accordance with Rule 82 of The Indian Electricity Rules 1956. I crave leave to refer such rule at the time of hearing, if necessary. “6. 5. Since the electricity High Tension line was drawn in accordance with law, the applicant under obligation to pay the shifting charges in accordance with Rule 82 of The Indian Electricity Rules 1956. I crave leave to refer such rule at the time of hearing, if necessary. “6. After getting application from the appellant for shifting of the said existing line on 30th April, 2018, a joint inspection was carried out by the official staffs of the respondents along with the appellant and it was suggested to divert and/or take the line from the corner/edge of the plot and the estimated value was Rs.5,47,721/- (Five laces, Forty Seven thousand and seven hundred Twenty one only) but the Petitioner forced to shift the line through a path which was completely surprising which practically involved hugh [sic; read, huge] Material & Labour and the estimated comes to Rs.16,57,319/- (sixteen laces, Fifty seven Thousand and Three Hundred nineteen only).” 6. Considering the statements made in the aforesaid paragraphs and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we are of the view that the direction upon the respondent no.3, namely, the Divisional Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Siliguri Town Division, District Darjeeling, does not warrant any interference. So far as the order of the learned Single Judge with regard to giving effect to the letter dated 30th August, 2018, is concerned, the same shall abide by the decision of the Divisional Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Siliguri Town Division, District Darjeeling. 7. The time-frame for the concerned Divisional Manager to take a decision in the matter in terms of the directions as contained in the impugned judgment and order, however, shall run from this day. 8. The impugned judgment and order is modified only to the extent as indicated above. 9. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.