AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The order passed by me on May 10, 2018 has been complied with as it appears from the report, which is filed today by Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate
appearing for the respondent Distribution-Licensee. Let the copy of the same be kept on record and a copy be given to Mr. Suman Ghosh, learned
advocate.
Today Ms. Sabita Dutta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the added respondent no.8 submits that her client’s objection was that contrary
to whatsoever was portrayed by the writ petitioner as also the Distribution-Licensee the passage was not the only the way in which electricity could
be supplied to the writ petitioner’s premises.
She further submits that admittedly the premises number of the writ petitioner and the added respondents are different. Merely because they are
catered by the same passage that does not mean that it is the only way which can be used for electrification. She, in fact, submits that the passage
belongs to the added respondents and the writ petitioner has no right, title and interest thereon.
On the contrary, the writ petitioner submits that it is a common passage. Whether the passage is common or not cannot be decided by the Writ Court.
However, the added respondents appear to have a claim though not before this Court.Accordingly, the added respondents are given liberty to
approach before the concerned District Magistrate in terms of the second proviso of sub-Rule 3(b) as also any other statutory provisions that would
apply to their claim and as and when such application is made for removal of the electric connection, the appropriate authority shall consider and
dispose of such application in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.
Needless to mention that in such event, the writ petitioner as also the added respondents and the Distribution-Licensee shall all be given adequate
opportunity of being heard and a reasoned order shall be passed, preferably within a period of three months from the date of making of such
application, if so advised, by the private respondents/added respondents.
Since the grievance of the writ petitioner in furtherance of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has already been redressed, nothing
else remains in the writ petition to dispose of without any further direction. The court appreciates the alacrity with which the CESC Limited complied
with the order of this Court passed on 10th May, 2018.
The order dated 10th May, 2018 is modified to that extent and the concerned District Magistrate is no longer required to consider the application of the
Distribution-Licensee, in case the added respondents make an application as provided by the order.The writ petition is disposed of.