AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
OM NARAYAN RAI, J.:-
This writ petition alleges inaction on the part of the respondent WBSEDCL authorities in restoring electricity supply at the petitioner’s business premises.
It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner had been enjoying electricity supply since 2001 and that the same was disconnected sometime in February/ March, 2016 without any notice or basis.
The petitioner thereafter applied for restoration of electricity supply on March 20, 2026. However, the respondent WBSEDCL authorities have not yet restored the petitioner’s electricity supply.
Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
Ms. Adhya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to restoration of electricity supply at the subject premises inasmuch as the petitioner is in settled possession of the said premises. It is submitted that the electricity supply of the petitioner was illegally disconnected by WBSEDCL.
Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the respondent WBSEDCL authorities submits that the petitioner was never the registered consumer of the WBSEDCL. The WBSEDCL has filed a report in the form of an affidavit disclosing letters issued on behalf of the registered consumer i.e. Sanchem Plastics Private Limited to demonstrate that the registered consumer i.e. Sanchem Plastics Private Limited had itself made a request for disconnection of its electricity supply and that the electricity supply was disconnected on February 29, 2016 in terms of such request. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is not the registered consumer, the petitioner’s request for restoration cannot be acceded to.
Mr. Swarajit Dey, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 6 submits that the petitioner is not in actual possession of the subject property since the petitioner has illegally sublet the property to a third party. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been issued a notice to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken against it for violating the lease agreement.
Ms. Adhya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner itself was the registered consumer and actually, the petitioner was rechristened as Sanchem Paints Private Limited on July 19, 2001 which would be evident from the “Certificate of Incorporation consequent upon change of name” issued by the Registrar of companies.
It is further submitted that the petitioner is very much in possession of the subject premises and as such the petitioner’s request for restoration of electricity supply must be honoured.
Attention of this Court is also invited to the joint inspection report annexed to the Exception to the Report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the WBSEDCL authorities, to demonstrate that the Tamralipta Nirman Udyog Private Limited is not in occupation of the relevant property. It is submitted that the respondent no. 6 is in the know of the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the said premises.
ANALYSIS & DECISION:
Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.
It is not in dispute that the electricity connection stood in the name of Sanchem Plastics Private Limited and the same was disconnected on February 29, 2016.
While it is apparent from the “Certificate of Incorporation consequent upon change of name” issued by the Registrar of companies that Sanchem Plastics Private Limited was renamed as Sanchem Paints Private Limited, yet that ipso facto would not entitle the petitioner to restoration of the electricity supply which was disconnected on February 29, 2016.
At this distance in time in 2026, such restoration would be a legal impossibility in view of the provisions of regulation 4.6 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 20131. The said regulation provides that upon electricity supply remaining continuously disconnected for a period of 180 days, the agreement of the licensee with the consumer for supply of electricity shall be deemed to have been terminated, provided such disconnection has been effected in compliance with any of the provisions of the Act or the Regulations. Since supply of electricity is only to be done in terms of the agreement to supply, once the agreement to supply has itself got terminated, there can be no occasion for the WBSEDCL authorities to restore electricity supply.
Ms. Adhya submits that going by the case run by the WBSEDCL authorities, the disconnection was made on the request of the petitioner and therefore, the agreement to supply cannot be deemed to have been terminated. The argument fails to appeal.
Regulation 4.6 of the 2013 Regulations speaks about disconnection that has been effected in compliance with any of the provisions of the Act or the Regulations. Regulation 4.4 provides for disconnection on request and therefore such disconnection would be in terms of the provisions of the 2013 Regulations which clearly falls within the mischief of Regulation 4.6 of the 2013 Regulations. In such view of the matter, the WBSEDCL authorities cannot be faulted for not restoring electricity supply in favour of the petitioner. Although the reasons cited by the WBSEDCL for not restoring supply are different yet, the ultimate conclusion cannot be disturbed in view of the clear legal position.
However, the petitioner would be free to make an application for fresh connection or new connection at the same premises.
If such an application is made, the WBSEDCL authorities would be free to process such application in accordance with law and take appropriate steps in terms of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 20032.
Needless to mention, that if the security deposit furnished by the erstwhile registered consumer (i.e. Sanchem Plastics Private Limited) for the purpose of taking electricity connection initially, has not yet been used up or adjusted or appropriated in accordance with law, the WBSEDCL authorities may consider adjusting the said security deposit with the security deposit required to be furnished by the petitioner for fresh/new connection in case the petitioner is found entitled therefor.
In case, the WBSEDCL authorities find that the security deposit put in by the erstwhile registered consumer earlier is not sufficient for the purpose of effecting new electricity supply in favour of the petitioner the WBSEDCL authorities would be well within their rights to demand the balance sum.
It is however clarified that all of the above would be conditional upon the petitioner’s entitlement to electricity supply in terms of Section 43 of the 2003 Act.
Needless to mention that WBSEDCL authorities would adhere to the provisions of the 2003 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder for the purpose of deciding as to whether the petitioner is entitled to electricity supply or not and also as regards the security deposit aspects.
It is further clarified that if electricity supply is effected in favour of the petitioner the same would not create any special equity or right in favour of the petitioner as regards any proceeding that may be initiated by the respondent no. 6 against the petitioner.
If an application for new supply is made by the petitioner, the WBSEDCL authorities would consider and dispose of the same expeditiously, in accordance with law.
WPA 13271 of 2026 stands disposed of with the above observations. No Costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.