High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 CAL CK 0632

Ravi Khilari vs CESC Limited & Ors.

Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side · Decided on 3 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Om Narayan Rai, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.P.A. 13312 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 331 words
1.

Exception filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 to the report filed on behalf of the respondent CESC Authorities is taken on record.

2.

The petitioner complains of inaction on the part of the respondent CESC Authorities in effecting electricity supply in favour of the petitioner at the petitioner’s residential premises. The report filed by the CESC Authorities reveals that the petitioner has been enjoying electricity supply through a meter which stands in the name of the petitioner’s father.

3.

The electricity licensee contends that the electricity supply initially stood in the name of the landlady of the premises and the same was transferred in the name of the petitioner’s father upon request.

4.

The distribution licensee asserts that effecting separate metered supply in favour of the petitioner would lead to splitting of load.

5.

Regulation 14 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for providing New Connections) Regulations, 2013 provides that if request for supply of electricity is declined on the ground of splitting of load, the applicant/intending consumer would have to approach the relevant Grievance Redressal Officer for appropriate decision and it would be the onus of the applicant/intending consumer to show that the electricity supply requested would not lead to splitting of load.

6.

In such view of the matter, no mandatory order as sought for by the petitioner can be passed on the present writ petition. The petitioner has an alternative statutory forum to approach.

7.

The writ petition is therefore, not entertained. WPA 13312 of 2026 stands dismissed.

8.

This order shall, however, not preclude the petitioner from approaching the relevant Grievance Redressal Officer which with appropriate representation/application in terms of the Regulation 14 of the appropriate regulation. If such representation/application is made, the Grievance Redressal Officer shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously.

9.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.