M/s. GST Constructions & Anr. vs The Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited & Ors.

The writ petition in the appellate side being WPA 15420 of 2026 has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited (in short, “CESC”) to immediately repair and restore the electric connections for consumer Nos. 3806102600, 38061027008 and 38061011008.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate representing the petitioners would submit that the petitioner No. 2 has been running a restaurant business under the name and style of M/s. New Basanta Cabin for the last 50 years from a shop room at the ground floor of premises No. 65A, Bidhan Sarani, Police Station –Burtolla, Kolkata 700006 formally known as 65, Bidhan Sarani (in short the “said premises”). According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 is a tenant and is in possession of one shop room being No. 5 on the ground floor of the aforesaid premises. The petitioners state that they have separate electricity meters issued by CESC the respondent no. 1 in their favour and have been regularly paying electricity bills as raised by the office of the respondent No. 1 from time to time. The petitioner No. 1 has one electricity meter with consumer No. 3806102600 standing in the name of Joydeb Mukherjee, the erstwhile tenant while the petitioner No. 2 has two separate electricity meters with consumer Nos. 38061027008 and 38061011008 all of which are commercial connections. According to the petitioners, the meter box of the said premises is located at eastern end wall of the said newly formed premises, and the common passage leading to the meter box from the main road is now obstructed by putting a padlock on the existing grill gate which otherwise remained open.

According to the petitioners, they are lawful tenants under the respondent no.8, unfortunately from the month of May 2022 and September 2023, the private respondent no.8 has refused to receive the rent. The petitioners claim that the respondent no.10 is holding itself out to be a developer, having been assigned with the job of development of the said premises. The petitioners contend that on 21^st June, 2026, the officials attached to the respondent No. 1 upon conducting an inspection and having found that the meter boxes are unsafe and hazardous to the life of the inhabitants had disconnected the supply and sealed the meters.

It is in the peculiar facts that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. When the matter came up for consideration on 8^th July, 2026, a Coordinate Bench of the Court considering the submissions made by the parties, inter alia, including the factum of an order passed under Section 412A of the KMC Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) in respect of the said premises, had directed the CESC officials to cause an inspection at the said premises and to ascertain the condition of the connection and the meter boxes thereat. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the CESC authorities had carried out an inspection and filed a report. When the matter came up for consideration on 20^th July, 2026, this Court considering the report and noting that an order has already been passed under Section 412A of the said Act, had directed the Executive Engineer(C) and Deputy Chief Engineer (Building)(North), KMC to be added as party in the petition. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the municipal authorities have been added and are represented.

Today, Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the CESC would submit that the CESC is not averse to effect supply to the petitioners and other consumers in the said premises, but for the shortcomings as noted, the supply has not been restored. In the event, the repair work is carried out and requisite charges in accordance with law are paid and if, on the basis of an inspection to be carried out by the CESC officials, the officials find that appropriate remedial measures as noted in its report has been carried out, the CESC shall restore the supply. Mr. Mukherjee, however, highlights that to undertake the repair work, at the first instance appropriate charges would be require to be deposited, for the CESC to temporarily remove the existing service cables and associated installations from the existing meter board position so as to enable the repairing work.

Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appears for the respondent nos. 10 and 11. He submits that the building is in precarious condition. If, at this stage, supply is restored and if once again, the petitioners continue with the business, the same might invite serious consequences including endangering third parties. He however, submits that in the event, the petitioner No. 2 is interested to carry out the repair work, such repair work must be carried out under the supervision of the municipal authorities and upon notice to the petitioners. In any event, he submits that since the petitioners have approached this Court, the cost of such repair must be borne by the petitioners.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears for the petitioners and would submit that not only the petitioner No. 2 but the petitioner No. 1 had been enjoying the electricity until the time mentioned herein before. He also submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to carry out the aforesaid repair and are also ready and willing to make payment of all costs, charges and expenses for restoration of the electricity and for availing the supply.

Mr. Patra, learned advocate appears for the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 and would submit that the petitioner No. 1 is not a tenant under the respondent Nos. 8 and 9, as such, no relief ought to be afforded to the petitioner no. 1.

The municipality is represented.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that a report has been filed by the CESC authorities. To morefully appreciate the same, the said report is extracted hereinbelow:

As would appear from the above, the CESC authorities have clearly indicated the shortcomings which are required to be rectified for restoration of supply. In this context, it may be noted that respondent nos. 8 and 9 have objected to the restoration of supply to the petitioner no. 1. So far as the respondent no. 10 is concerned, he objects to the restoration of supply citing dilapidated condition of the building. On the aforesaid score, I find that the disconnection of supply is not on the ground that the building is dilapidated, rather on the ground that the rain water was entering into the meter board due to inappropriate shade on the meter board, damaged condition of the meter board and the condition of the main switches. Further since, the CESC had stated that it is willing to restore the supply subject to compliance of the directions noted in the report, in my view, restoration of supply cannot be linked to the order passed under Section 412A of the said Act, especially when electricity is an essential supply.

This apart as per the submissions of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate representing the petitioners, since the petitioners have volunteered to carry out the repair work at the risk and cost of the petitioners and have also submitted that they are ready and willing to deposit the charges to the CESC authorities for the purpose of temporary removal of the existing service cables and the associated installations from the existing meter board position so as to enable the repair work of the dilapidated meter board, I am of the view, in the event the petitioners apply before the CESC authorities in requisite form, the CESC authorities shall within two working days make available the quotation for the petitioners to deposit the costs and charges with the CESC authorities. Once, such deposit is made, the CESC authorities shall forthwith take steps and employ men and machinery to remove the existing service cable and the associated installation from the existing meter board position so as to enable the repairing job of the dilapidated meter board/wall by the petitioners. Such job must be completed within three days from the date of deposit of the costs and charges by the petitioners. Once, the aforesaid job is completed, the petitioners shall be at liberty to carry out the repairs, however, before carrying out the repair, due intimation in this regard shall be given to the municipal authorities, the respondent Nos. 8 to 11 and the other consumers, if they are available. Further, considering the fact that the existing meter board may contain and/or cater to several meters of other consumers who may not be interested, and have not approached this Court, the petitioners shall be at liberty to set up a meter board adjacent to the existing meter board position on the outer wall, in consultation with the CESC authorities. It is also made clear that no formal permission for setting up the meter board at any adjacent suitable location from the respondent nos. 8 to 11 would be necessary, as none has come forward to take steps for restoration of supply to the concerned premises. It is further made clear that once, repair work is carried out, or meter board in adjacent location is set up along with appropriate shed, due intimation in this regard shall be given by the petitioners to the CESC authorities for the CESC authorities to carry out an inspection and if, on the basis thereof, the CESC authorities find that appropriate repair work in terms of the observations contained in the report dated 14^th July, 2026 has been carried out or a new meter board has been set up, supply to the registered consumers who have approached this Court shall be restored. Although, at this stage, Mr. Mukherjee would submit that restoration of piecemeal supply may create a difficulty, however, having regard to the fact that it is the petitioners who have only approached this Court, and restoration of supply to the petitioners cannot be held back if other consumers are not interested, I am of the view that the restoration of supply for the time being can be limited to the petitioners. However, to overcome the problem as raised and anticipated by the CESC authorities, I am of the view, in the event, appropriate space is left in the meter board and/or provision for other existing meters are made, and if, in future any other consumers approach the authorities, the authorities shall be in a position to restore supply to such consumer as well. The above provision shall however, be optional as no other consumer has approached this Court, despite interruption of supply since 21^st June, 2026.

The Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional Police Station shall render all assistance to the petitioners and CESC authorities including the municipal authorities to give effect to the order passed by this Court and all the respondents are directed to act in tandem to give effect to the aforesaid order.

The petitioners are directed to communicate this order to the concerned Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional Police Station.

This order shall, however, not be construed to authorise to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to carry out business from the said premises. The petitioners must ensure compliance of all statutory formalities including the fire licence and other associated licences before carrying on business from the said premises.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition being WPA 15420 of 2026 is disposed of.

The writ petition in the Original Side being WPO 354 of 2026 has been filed challenging the steps taken by the municipal authorities including issuance of the notices under Sections 411 and 412A(1) and the order dated 27^th November, 2025 issued under Section 412A of the said Act. The above writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner who is the petitioner no.1 in the writ petition in the appellate side being WPA 15420 of 2026. On identical grounds and maintaining an identical challenge, the petitioner no.2 in the appellate side writ petition has filed the other writ petition in the original side, which has been registered as WPO 358 of 2026. In both the aforesaid writ petitions, intervention applications have been filed at the instance of the developer, who is the respondent no.10 in the appellate side writ petition.

Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties, the applications being GA 1 of 2026 in both the above writ petitions are allowed.

The intervenors are directed to be added as party-respondents in the respective writ petitions. The Department is directed to carry out the above amendment promptly on expeditious basis. Mr. Majumder learned advocate through his junior accepts service of the writ petitions.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting from the submissions made by the parties including Mr. Majumder, learned advocate representing the added respondents that the intervenors are interested to develop the above property situated at 65A, Bidhan Sarani, Police Station - Burtolla, Kolkata – 700006, which has become dilapidated over passage of time, I am of the view that the matter insofar as the disputes between the petitioners and the added respondents including the respondent no.3 in the above writ petitions in the original side are concerned, may be referred to mediation.

Accordingly, an intimation in this regard be given to the Member Secretary, Mediation and Conciliation Committee, High Court at Calcutta.

The matter is made returnable after 8 weeks or after closure of the mediation proceedings, whichever is later. The municipality is directed to stay their hands in respect of the aforesaid property for the time being till the matter is taken up next or for a period of 12 weeks from the date, whichever is earlier.