Rabindra Singh vs The CESC Limited and Others

Hon''ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated February 6, 2012 is alleging that CESC has wrongfully given supply of electricity to the private respondent using the number of premises in respect of which he and his mother and brother are joint recorded thika tenants. Mr Srivastava appearing for the petitioner has argued as follows. CESC has refused to give a copy of the application submitted by the private respondent seeking supply. Documents produced by the private respondent with her Affidavit-in-Opposition are fabricated. Opinion of the handwriting expert produced by the petitioner with his Affidavit-in-Reply will prove this allegation made by the petitioner. The private respondent was never and still is not in occupation of any part of the premises.

Mr Gupta appearing for CESC has submitted as follows. The application submitted by the private respondent was destroyed. Other documents submitted by her were returned after verification. The petitioner has approached the Writ Court with a private dispute.

Mr Sanwarwala appearing for the private respondent has submitted as follows. The private respondent has filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition stating that as an occupier of the premises she applied for supply of electricity with consent of the original thika tenant (Achaibar Ram Shaw). The private respondent is still an occupier of the premises. The allegation that the private respondent has produced fabricated documents is absolutely incorrect.

I find no reason to exercise power under art.226 to decide the questions whether the private respondent was and is an occupier of the premises; whether the private respondent applied for supply of electricity producing fabricated documents; and whether the opinion of the handwriting expert proves that documents produced by the private respondent with her Affidavit-in-Opposition are fabricated documents. These questions are to be decided after taking down evidence.

In my opinion, the petitioner''s remedy, if any, was before the Civil and Criminal Courts. For these reasons, while I dismiss the WP, I make it clear that nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from approaching the Civil and Criminal Courts seeking reliefs according to law. No costs. Certified xerox.