JUDGMENT : Harish Tandon, J. 1. The matter has been referred to this Bench by the Hon’ble Chief Justice to answer the following reference: “whether it is legally plausible for the CESC Limited to give separate domestic connections from separate electric meter boards in respect of same premises, which is co-owned by different parties and not partitioned by metes and bounds as per law, either by any registered partition deed or by a competent Court’s decree. 2. The facts discerned from the order dated November 30, 2001 passed in WPA no. 16560 of 2021 by the Single Bench was that the co-owner of the property applied for separate independent electric connection in the joint premises and the CESC refused to accede to such prayer as the objection was raised by the other co-owner. The objector i.e. the other co-owner relied on a judgment of the Single Bench rendered in Nabin Agarwal & Anr. vs. C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2003 (4) CHN 541 for the proposition that the occupiers of segregated buildings or structures are entitled to separate electric connection from different meters even when there is no formal partition of premises. Apropos the aforesaid judgment it was contended that in the event the co-owner intends to have the separate electric connection, the same can be given through a separate electric meter installed on the same electric meter board set up for catering the supply at the said premises and, therefore, no separate electric line can be provided to such co-owner in respect of the joint premises. The Single Bench ultimately held that the judgment rendered in Nabin Agarwal & Anr. (Supra) relates to a situation where high tension connection was given to cater the supply of the larger premises and in this event, the premises is segregated physically and no partition is affected and the same cannot be construed that in case of a joint premises unless the partition is effected, separate electric connection can be provided. Since the Single Bench could not pursued itself to agree with the ratio of law laid down in the above-noted decision, referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice formulating the point of reference as indicated in the first paragraph of this judgment. We invited the parties to address us on the aforesaid point of reference which has been entrusted upon this Bench to decide. 3. We invited the parties to address us on the aforesaid point of reference which has been entrusted upon this Bench to decide. 3. The parties are at variance on a factual aspect concerning the status of the property to be joint. According to the objector, i.e., the co-owner, the joint property has been partitioned by metes and bounds and no longer exist as joint property; on the other hand, the writ petitioner contends that there has been no partition by metes and bounds and, therefore, it remained as joint property. The Bench cannot go into such disputed facts as the same is required to be determined by the Writ Court after the reference is answered. Interestingly, Mr. Sanyal, the learned Advocate appearing for the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (C.E.S.C.) did not in unequivocal terms discarded the notion of non supply of electricity through separate electric connection in the joint premises but reserved his arguments to the effect that such supply may be feasible depending upon the nature of the property and its accessibility and feasibility of catering the separate supply connection. To elaborate the aforesaid contention it is submitted by Mr. Sanyal that in respect of a smaller premises ordinarily one supply line is provided to avoid any interjection and/or overlapping of the live wires in order to prevent the hazards and/or accident that may occur. However, he could not rule out the possibility of supplying electricity to separate electric supply line if it ruled out any hazards or the accident more particularly when the said property can be accessed so conveniently that there is no overlapping or congestion in the supply line. He candidly submits that one supply line may cater up to 20-25 meters subject to the availability of the requisite space and, therefore, each co-owner may have the supply of electricity in a portion occupied by him in a joint property to the exclusion of the other co-owner. According to Mr. Sanyal, Regulation 13(1) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 mandates that the supplier shall ensure that all electric supply lines, wires, fittings, and apparatus belonging to him or under his control at the consumer premises are in a safe condition and all precaution shall be taken to avoid the danger that may arise in the said premises for such supply line, wires, fittings and apparatus. It is further submitted that Regulation 7.2 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013 provides that in the event the licensee installs meter at pole then the line from meter up to the main switch on the consumer’s part should be insulated properly and there shall not be any joint/junction box or bare part leading to the main switch/cut out and for such purposes, the consumer has to take all precautionary measures by maintaining the same. He strenuously submits that where the supply line is provided through an underground service connection then in such event service connection cannot be installed on a left out wall of the applicants premises because of the existence of a drain beneath the said wall nor it can be installed on the outer wall as there is a narrow veranda on the other side of the wall. For the clarity it is hereby made clear that the last submission was made on an existence of a particular fact in relation to the premises where the writ petitioner sought for a separate electric connection and not as a universal application of such notion in all conceivable facts. 4. The Electricity Act, 2003 was promulgated to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to the development of electricity industry, promoting competition therein, protecting interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalisation of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Authority, regulatory commissions and establishment of Appellate Tribunal and for all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 43 of the said Act creates an obligation on every distribution licensee to give supply of electricity to such premises on an application by the owner or occupier of the premises requiring such supply within one month from the date of the receipt of the said application. Sub-section (2) of Section 43 makes it obligatory on the part of the distribution licensee to provide the electric line for every electricity supply to the premises as specified in Sub- Section (1). Sub-section (3) of Section 43 relates to a penalty to be imposed on the distribution licensee in the event they failed to supply the electricity within the specified time given under sub-Section (1) thereof. Sub-section (3) of Section 43 relates to a penalty to be imposed on the distribution licensee in the event they failed to supply the electricity within the specified time given under sub-Section (1) thereof. Though Section 44 of the said Act contemplates an exception from duty to supply electricity but the same is restricted to a certain eventualities like Cyclone, flood, storms or other occurrences beyond the control of the distribution licensee. What can be gathered from the aforesaid provision contained in Section 43 of the said Act that it is imperative on the part of the distribution licensee to provide the supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises on an application made in this regards within one month from the date of the receipt of the said application. It also cast duty on the distribution licensee to establish the infrastructure for such supply of electricity to such premises in order to meet the demand of supply of electricity. The premises have been defined in Section 2(51) of the said Act to include any land, building or structure. There is no real and artificial distinction assigned in the definition of premises in relation to its nature and accessibility. The definition of the premises is of wide import which can be visualised from the word “includes” given under Section 2 (51) of the said Act. There is no distinction between a single owned building or structure and the building or structure owned by more than one person jointly. Even the word ‘owner’ or ‘occupier’ appearing in Section 43 does not make any distinction between a sole owner or a co-owner or a joint owner of the building or structure comprised in the said premises. It is beyond cavil of doubt that the concept of ownership of a premises has to be understood in an ordinary sense and no artificial distinction can be brought between the sole owner and the co-owner or joint owner. Under the common parlance, the premises owned by more than one person are regarded as the owner of the said premises jointly with other each having the similar and identical rights in respect thereof. Under the common parlance, the premises owned by more than one person are regarded as the owner of the said premises jointly with other each having the similar and identical rights in respect thereof. The co-owner or joint owner cannot be put to a lower pedestal than the sole owner as in every inch of the property he has the right as an owner and, therefore, in absence of any special or compelling circumstances, the distribution licensee cannot deny the supply of electricity to a co-owner in a joint premises. The word ‘owner’ has not been defined in the said Act and, therefore, no restrictive meaning can be assigned to it nor any artificial distinction can be made in this regard. The co-owner or joint owners owned the property in every inch thereof in commensurate with the shares they held and the separation and/or segregation of such right/share is recognised only upon passing a decree for partition or by a deed of partition executed jointly by the co-owners signifying their intention to separate their shares and/or rights which was owned jointly at one point of time. We do not find any fetter in the law that the co-owner cannot get supply of electricity at the joint premises in absence of any decree for partition or deed of partition having executed to separate their shares which they have in respect of the joint property. The law as it stands does not create any embargo on the co-owner to have the supply of electricity at the joint premises nor the distribution licensee have been bestowed with any such power to create artificial distinctions or an embargo in acceding to the prayer of the co-owner/joint owner to have a separate supply of electricity at the joint premises. Any such attempt to distinguish one co-owner from another in respect of a joint property would destroy the very fabric of the concept of the joint owners. Such being the fundamental principles behind the concept of co-ownership, the contention of the CESC required a deeper scrutiny more particularly, on the aspect of the safety, security and the feasibility of supply of electricity through a separate supply line. Such being the fundamental principles behind the concept of co-ownership, the contention of the CESC required a deeper scrutiny more particularly, on the aspect of the safety, security and the feasibility of supply of electricity through a separate supply line. The stand of the CESC is categorical in the sense that there is no fetter in any of the provisions applicable in this regard to effect the separate supply line at the premises but subject to the accessibility and the feasibility more particularly, to avoid any hazards or the accident that may arise because of the congestion and/or overlapping of the wires from the main supply. Section 53 of the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates the observance of the safety and protection of the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission or distribution or trading of electricity or use of electricity supplied at the behest of the distribution company. It further provides that the authority as defined under Section 2(6) of the said Act and established by Section 70(1) thereof shall, in consultation with the State Government may specify the suitable measures in this regard. There is no ambiguity in our mind that it is imperative even on the part of the distribution licensee to take an adequate measure for protecting the public from any danger or eliminating or reducing the risk of any injury to any person or a damage to the property for use of the electric line or the property. The safety and security of the life of a person or the property is the primary duty of the distribution company and by no stretch of imagination one can visualise the avoidance thereof by virtue of powers to make regulations. Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 was promulgated and Article 13(1) thereof provides that the supplier shall ensure that all electricity supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus belonging to him or in his control at the consumer’s premises are in a safe condition and all measures should be taken to avoid the danger arising on such premises from such supply line, wires, fittings and apparatus. 5. 5. It is manifest from the aforesaid provisions that it is a primary duty of the distribution licensee to ensure the safety and security of the life and properties of the consumer at his premises by maintaining the electric supply line, wire, fittings and apparatus to avoid any danger that may arise. Even Regulation 7.2 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013 cast a duty on the distribution licensee to keep the wire and the meter if installed at the pole with proper insulation in order to avoid any accident to happen. On a conjoined reading of the aforesaid provisions including an obligation cast upon the distribution licensee to supply electricity to the premises, it admits no ambiguity that safety measures are required to be adhered to avoid any danger to the life and the property that may occur because of the supplier of electricity thereat. In the garb of the same, the distribution licensee cannot deny the separate electric line at the premises jointly used by several persons when the accessibility and the feasibility can be secured thereat. There is no provision contained in the Act and the related rules or regulations that there cannot be more than one supply line in the premises but obviously safety measures are required to be adhere to. 6. There cannot be a blanket proposition that the moment a premises has been catered with a supply line, no separate supply line can be provided thereat even in case of a smaller premises if the supply line can be affected having accessibility without overlapping the wire or laying the wire in a very close proximity or other related factors which may endanger the safety and security of the life and the property. The contention of the CESC that in a small premises more than one supply line cannot be provided is not acceptable as it depends upon the location, accessibility and the feasibility ensuring the safety and security of the life and property. There is no distinction made while assigning a definition to a premises in relation to its area and, therefore, it is very difficult on the part of the distribution licensee to consider any premises to be small or large. There is no distinction made while assigning a definition to a premises in relation to its area and, therefore, it is very difficult on the part of the distribution licensee to consider any premises to be small or large. The distribution licensee being the creature of the statute is not permitted to import something within the provisions nor can construe the provision in conservative manner having a cascading effect. 7. We, thus, answered the reference as follows: There is no fetter on the part of the distribution company i.e., CESC Ltd. to give a domestic service connection through a separate electric meter boards in respect of a joint property provided the safety and security of the life and the property is ensured in terms of the regulations as indicated above. 8. Let the file of the instant writ petition be sent to the Bench having determination to decide the same on merit. The reference is answered accordingly. 9. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with requisite formalities. I agree.