Momina Begam vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

This writ petition alleges arbitrariness on the part the respondent/WBSEDCL authorities in demanding from the petitioner dues that remain outstanding in respect of the same premises at the instance of the erstwhile consumer, as a condition for grant of new electricity supply.

It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner has applied for a new electricity connection and as a condition to grant the same WBSEDCL is demanding payment of sums that were left unpaid by the erstwhile consumer.

It is asserted that the erstwhile consumer is no way connected to the petitioner and as such, since there is no nexus between the petitioner and the erstwhile consumer. The petitioner contends that she is not liable to pay anything in respect of the outstanding dues of the said erstwhile consumer.

Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appearing for the WBSEDCL authority invites the attention of this Court to annexure p-4 at page-16 to the writ petition, to demonstrate that the dues that have been claimed are in respect of one Sahid Ahamed. He next takes this Court to the jurat portion of the writ petition to show that the petitioner is the wife of the same Sahid Ahamed. It is submitted that there is thus a clear nexus between the petitioner and the erstwhile consumer, whose dues are being claimed.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the respondent/electricity licensee cannot demand the outstanding dues of the erstwhile consumer from the petitioner inasmuch as the same are time-barred.

Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner is unable to contradict the jurat portion of the writ petition where the writ petitioner has been shown to be the wife of Sahid Ahamed.

Regulations 3.4.2 and 4.6.4 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013 taken cumulatively would indicate that the petitioner would be liable to clear the dues of her husband if the petitioner wishes to get a new electricity connection at the same premises in respect whereof the electricity dues remain outstanding at the instance of her husband.

The writ petitioner’s contention that Section 56 of the 2003 Act would bar the licensee from recovering the dues from the petitioner is misconceived inasmuch as Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 will be applicable to the defaulting consumer and not to an intending consumer.

The other submission of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that presently, the petitioner and her husband, i.e., the defaulting consumer are not living together and they do not share a good relationship, is also of no avail. There is nothing on record to buttress such contention. The bald assertion that the petitioner has no connection with Sahid Ahamed in paragraph 8 of the writ petition is belied by the affidavit in support of the writ petition.

The action taken by the electricity licensee cannot be said to be arbitrary or without jurisdiction.

For all the reasons aforesaid, WPA 19673 of 2026 stands dismissed. No costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.