AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Report filed on behalf of the WBSEDCL authority is taken on record.
Since the facts pertaining to both these writ petitions are inextricably linked therefore, both these writ petitions are being heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
WPA 11046 of 2026 has been filed by one Pratap Bera (hereinafter “the petitioner”) seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the WBSEDCL authority to issue a revised bill in terms of Appellate Authority’s order and restore connection in respect of Consumer ID No.203658335 immediately.
WPA 11982 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner along with his brother challenging the provisional and final orders of assessment and seeking order for restoration of the electricity connection in respect of Consumer ID NO.203945501 and 223092446.
The petitioner has been running a commercial establishment and carrying on a business of fishery.
The petitioner had been enjoying electricity connection for such purpose from the WBSEDCL authority. He was found using electricity unauthorisedly and accordingly, an order of final assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was passed holding him liable for a sum of Rs.14,16,769/-.
The said order of assessment was carried in appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the 2003 Act whereupon the appellate authority held that “assessment against pilferage of electricity for illegal use may be achieved by as assessed by the concerned Station Manager & Assessing Officer in the Final Assessment Bill”.
The amount assessed in terms of the final order of assessment has been paid by the petitioner.
Subsequently, the petitioner and his brother were again found using electricity unauthorisedly for the purpose of the same commercial premises. Accordingly, another order of final assessment was passed on March 23, 2026 which is the subject matter of challenge in WPA 11982 of 2026.
The sum assessed by the said order of assessment dated March 23, 2026 still remains unpaid. By the said order the petitioner and his brother were found liable in the sum of Rs.7,05,073/- jointly and severally.
Mr. Chatterjee, Learned Advocate appearing or the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to make payment of the said sum of Rs.7,05,073/- in instalments and in the meantime electricity supply to the petitioner’s commercial establishment through consumer ID No.203658335 may be restored.
Dr. Saha Ray, Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent WBSEDCL authority submits that the petitioner has been instrumental in unauthorised use of electricity whereupon two final orders of assessment have been passed and since both the bills pertain to unauthorised electricity in respect of the same business of the petitioner therefore the petitioner’s liability cannot be segregated and electricity connection to Consumer ID No.203658335 cannot be granted to the petitioner without the petitioner paying the assessed sum in respect of the final order of assessment dated March 23, 2026.
Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and considered the material on record.
Since, the petitioner has also been found jointly and severally liable for the unauthorised use of electricity in respect of the other connection therefore, notwithstanding there being two separate connections, electricity in respect of even one of such connections cannot be resumed on payment of the amount due only in respect of that particular electric connection. Supply may be resumed in respect of both the connections only upon payment of the entire dues of the electricity licensee owed by the petitioner.
Indeed the right to discontinue supply or not to restore supply till entire payment is made is a recognised right of the electricity licensee in terms of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly no mandatory order of reconnection of one of the supplies without clearing the entire dues can be made.
The petitioner is, however, left free to make appropriate representation before the WBSEDCL for making payments in instalments with a request for reconnection/restoration of electricity connection to the petitioner upon WBSEDCL accepting a lump sum or a particular portion of the sum which is presently due and owing from the petitioner to the WBSEDCL.
However as no mandatory order in such regard can be passed by this Court, therefore, it will be entirely in the decision-domain of the WBSEDCL as to whether they would accept the petitioner’s request for reconnection upon payment of a lump sum (or a portion of the total dues) so that the balance may be cleared in instalment or not. The arrangement would thus have to be worked by the WBSEDCL and the petitioner without any mandate from the Court.
However, it is clear and certain that electricity would be restored only if the petitioners pay the entirety of the outstanding dues and if the dues are cleared in entirety, the WBSEDCL would promptly restore supply.
With the aforesaid observation WPA 11946 of 2026 and WPA 11982 of 2026 stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.