BIMAL ROY vs DISTRICT ENGINEER, CESC LTD. & 2 ORS.

The petitioner is the occupant of a portion of house No.1K, B.K. Paul Lane, Kolkata. He applied for grant of a separate electric connection for domestic use in the aforesaid house. The said electricity connection, however, was not installed. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, impleading the licensee CESC Ltd. and his brothers, namely, Sri Gopal Roy and Sri Nirmal Roy as the opposite parties.

The District Forum vide its order dated 17.4.2014 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.2.2016, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

Admittedly, the house in which the petitioner/complainant and his brothers are residing was owned by their mother. The case of the respondent No.2 is that house was gifted to him by their mother. The said gift has been challenged by the petitioner/complainant before a Civil Court and the said suit is still pending adjudication. In case the gift is declared to be invalid, the petitioner/complainant will be treated as a co-owner of the property along with the other legal heirs of his mother. In case the said gift is upheld, he would not be a co-owner of the house in which electric connection is sought by him.

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has drawn our attention to Regulation 3.2.1 (b) of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Licensees Relating to Consumer Services) Regulations, 2010 which to the extent relevant reads as under:- 3.2 Clearance required for new connection : "3.2.1 No new connection shall be given unless the following document(s) is/are submitted by the intending consumer with the application in the form given in Annexure-A, completed in every respect, where applicable.

(b) Document(s) of bonafide occupation or ownership of a premises, such as Passport / Voter Identity Card / Rent Bill / Rent Control Challan / Telephone Bill / Municipal or another Tax Bill / any other document issued by any Ministry or Department of Government showing his occupancy in the premises etc."

Form -1 referred in the above Regulation is reproduced as under:-

" Sir,

I / We have no objection to allow the fixing and erection of the necessary apparatus on or within the premises at .........................................................owned by me / us, for effecting service connection to the premises at

...................................................................owned / occupied by Sri/ Smt./M/s. ....................................................................... son / daughter/wife of

..................................................

I / We have no objection if the service line passes over / along / across/under premises at ........................... owned by me / us for effecting service connection to the premises at ...............................................owned / occupied by Sri / Smt./ M/s .................................son /daughter / wife of ................................................"

It would thus be seen that as far as respondent No.1 is concerned, unless the applicant is the owner of the property in which electric connection is required, it cannot release a new connection without Way Leave Permission from the owner of the premises, in the above-referred prescribed form. In case the applicant himself is a co-owner of the property in which the connection is sought, such a permission obviously would not be required.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that electric connection can be obtained by any lawful occupant without requisite permission from the owner of the property even if the applicant is not the owner/co-owner of the property in which the supply is sought. In support of is contention, he relies upon the decision of a full Bench of Calcutta High Court in Abhimanyu Mazumdar Vs. Superintending Engineer & Anr. [Air 2011 Calcutta 64 ].

We have carefully considered the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The above-referred decision is based upon the Electricity Act 2003 and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. It does not even take note of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Licensees Relating to Consumer Services) Regulations, 2010. Therefore, the above-referred decision in our opinion would not apply to a case where Way Leave Permission from the owner of the property is required in terms of statutory regulations. So long as the statutory regulations stand on the Statute Book and are not struck down by a competent court, it would be difficult for us to pass an order which would result in compelling the licensee to contravene the provisions of the said regulations. Therefore, it would be difficult for us to accept the contention that despite the above-referred statutory regulations, respondent No.1 cannot insist upon Way Leave Permission in the specified format from the owner of the premises in which electric connection is sought.

The learned counsel for the petitioner now relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu [AIR 2004 SC 4609] . We have gone through the said judgement. This judgement also does not address the issue involved in this petition, i.e., as to whether a licensee can be directed to grant electric connection in contravention of the statutory regulations. Therefore, the aforesaid decision in our opinion is of no help to the petitioner/complainant.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we dispose of this revision petition with the following directions:-

If the Civil Court in which the civil suit filed by the petitioner / complainant is pending, permits him to obtain electric connection in his own name in the portion occupied by him in House No., respondent No.1 shall provide the said connection without insisting upon Way Leave Permission from respondent No.2 but the connection will be granted subject to final decision in the said civil suit.

In case the petitioner does not apply to the Civil Court for grant of permission to obtain electric connection in his name or such a permission is refused, the respondent No.1 will not be obliged to grant electric connection in the name of the complainant/petitioner.

There shall be no order as to costs.