Raju Sekh vs West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors.

The writ petitioner had approached the Court because his son had been electrocuted while visiting a roadside tea stall in the rural area near Diamond

Harbour where electrification is done by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited as a distribution licensee under the

Electricity Act, 2003. Though the questions of compensation and constitutional tort have arisen during the course of hearing of the writ petition I

wanted to ascertain from the Distribution Licensee whether indeed there was electrocution as is apparent from the post mortem report.

Learned advocate for the Distribution Licensee submits that the fault was not of the Distribution Licensee but it was wholly that of the non-State

respondent who was running the tea stall where electric supply was obtained by ‘hooking’ from a supply of the electricity effected by the

Distribution Licensee which did not stand in the name of the non-State respondent. It is his submission on instructions that the petitioner’s son

went to have tea and biscuits at such roadside stall and was electrocuted.

Prima facie this shows that the Distribution Licensee had notice and knowledge of the business being run illegally by theft of electricity through the

highly insecure mode of hooking. Learned advocate for the Distribution Licensee submits that given the lack of man power and the erosion of moral

values throughout the country it is not possible for a rural office of the Distribution Licensee to continuously monitor several acts of theft but as and

when such instances are detected the Distribution Licensee sets in motion the entire process of law to ensure that such activities are stopped.

I am not impressed with the submission that someone who supplies an essential utility such as electricity under statutory obligations can plead the lack

of man power or the prevalence of dishonest abstraction of electricity as a ground to justify what appears prima facie to be negligence on the part of

the Distribution Licensee. Learned advocate for the Distribution Licensee submits that immediately after the Distribution Licensee was informed in

March, 2014 about the sad death of the son of the petitioner in February, 2014, it had taken steps against the non-State respondent by causing first

information report to be registered and thereafter let the matter lie.

Learned advocate for the Distribution Licensee said that as a defacto complainant after registration of first information report in such a serious matter

nothing is done by the Investigating Agency or the learned Criminal Court according to his instructions and, therefore, the defacto complainant is

powerless. Such submission while technically possible is breached in practice. The writ jurisdiction is flooded with police inaction matters where the

petitioners are mostly defacto complainants especially in case of cognizable offences. It is not in dispute that the offence of theft of electricity is

cognizable.

Accordingly, prima facie I believe that the Distribution Licensee who discharges the obligation of supplying an essential utility such as electricity and

makes profit out of the same through tariffs fixed by the concerned Regulatory Commission which allows more than a reasonable return on the

investment cannot pretend to be a weak ineffectual angel beating its wings in the luminous void; that would have befitted a poet of the fall and not a

Distribution Licensee. Accordingly, the Distribution Licensee is to file an affidavit in opposition as also a report. The report must indicate who is the

concerned officer for monitoring the theft of electricity and safety measures in respect of supply of electricity to rural Bengal particularly to the area

in question.

It must outline all the steps taken from 2013 till today not only to check the dishonest abstraction of energy but further the procedure by which

monitoring and inspection of electrical installations and supply lines are done and shall further contain particulars as to how often and how regularly

such inspection occurs. The report must be accompanied by sufficient contemporaneous documents and if digital records are relied upon their print out

must show reference to the original documents from which data have been compiled. The affidavit in opposition shall deal with the allegations

contained in the writ petition among other things and shall also address the question of how far this Court can direct payment of compensation even

where a case of constitutional tort as it is called is made out.

Let affidavit in opposition and the report be filed after prior service on the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from date. Reply thereto and the

exception to the report as aforesaid, if any shall be filed within three weeks from the filing of the opposition and the report. It is also directed that the

report is to be filed by a responsible officer deputed by the Managing Director of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited.

Learned advocate for the Distribution Licensee is requested to supply a copy of this order to the Managing Director of the West Bengal State

Electricity Distribution Company Limited so that he can devote his utmost concentration on the problem. The matter shall appear under the same

heading on September 5, 2018. Let photostat plain copy of the order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned

advocate for the Distribution Licensee on usual undertaking.