Sk. Taiyab Ali & Anr. vs CESC Limited & Anr.

RaiChattopadhyay, J. :-

As many as nine consumers have been consuming electrical connection at the premises No. 30/1 Kajipara Lane, Howrah- 711103, PS- Shibpur, before the supply was disconnected there, by the respondent/CESC, on April 26, 2024. From amongst the said erstwhile consumers, one namely Sk. Rajob Ali, (Consumer No. 60076059006), was admittedly the father of the present petitioner and the petitioner accepts having nexus to the said erstwhile consumer at the premises from amongst the total nine of them.

At present, the petitioner claiming himself to be the authorized occupier of the premises, who is in settled occupation therein, has prayed for grant of electricity connection thereto. The respondent authority has conducted an inspection over there pursuant to the petitioner's application for grant of new electricity connection and an order of this Court dated August 18, 2026. The inspection report of the respondent is dated September 14, 2026. According to the same, the petitioner have nexus with all the erstwhile consumers in the premises and therefore, would not be entitled for a new connection without making good the assessed claim of the respondent authority under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The relevant portion of the report of the respondent authority dated September 14, 2026 may be quoted as herein below:-

It may be mentioned that with respect to the electricity connection at the concerned premises, the assessed claim amount under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is Rs 8,27,007/-.

Mr. Bidyut Kumar Halder, learned advocate, has represented the petitioner. He submits that since the petitioner accepts his nexus with the erstwhile consumer at the premises namely Sk. Rajob Ali being his father, the petitioner would be liable for payment of outstanding charges calculated in a pro-rated manner and apportionable to Sheikh Rajob Ali only. Hence, it is insisted that the respondent authority may be directed to immediately grant new connection as per petitioner's prayer, subject to his payment of the apportionment of the assessed claim under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The petitioner's contention and prayer as above, has been vehemently objected to by Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy, learned advocate who has represented the respondent/CESC. Dr. Saha Roy has referred to Regulation4.6 and 4.6.4 in particular of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013 vide notification No. 55/WBERC dated August 7, 2013. He submits that there is a specific statutory time limit beyond which the agreement of the licensee with the consumer would be deemed to have been terminated. He submits that according to Regulation4.6.1 of the Regulations of 2013, the said time limit is for a period of 180 days. He submits further that if the power supply to any consumer remains disconnected continuously 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 with consequential effect. His specific reliance has been on Regulation 4.6.4 of the 2013 Regulations which is precisely as follows: -

Dr. Saha Roy, learned advocate for the respondent, has emphasized that the wordings in Regulation4.6.4 having started with the non-obstante clause and, therefore, irrespective of any other provision contrary to that mentioned in 4.6.4, the petitioner would be liable for payment of the entire outstanding dues against the deemed terminated consumer in the concerned premises along with late payment surcharge. Accepting the same, according to Dr. Saha Roy, learned advocate for the respondent, the petitioner is debarred due to operation of the provisions of law to be provided with any new connection in the said premises itself.

In an electricity dispute these concepts must be harmonised by examining the precise language, scope and object of the two regulatory provisions, rather than treating either expression as conclusive in isolation. In Arun Kumar Debnath versus West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited [WPA No. 20816 of 2021 dated 28^th March, 2022], the Calcutta High Court examined Regulation 13.9 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Licensees Relating to Consumer Services) Regulations, 2010, which contemplates recovery of outstanding dues from an intending consumer where the requisite nexus with a previous defaulting consumer is established. The Court recognised that the existence of such nexus is a condition precedent to fastening liability under the provision.

The relationship between the two provisions is further illuminated by the Division Bench decision in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited versus Transmission & Distribution (India) Limited [in FMA 1083 of 2022] decided on 20 March 2023, and the subsequent decision in MAT 1883 of 2022, decided on 20 November 2024. The latter specifically considered Regulation 13.9 of the 2010 Regulations alongside Regulation 3.4.2 of the WBERC Regulations of 2013, observing that the latter governs recovery of a previous consumer’s dues in respect of the same premises and requires the licensee to establish the requisite nexus.

The expression “notwithstanding anything contained contrary elsewhere in these Regulations”, as employed in Regulation 6.2.4 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations, 2013, is a non-obstante clause intended to confer overriding effect upon the provision in which it occurs, in the event of inconsistency with other provisions of the same Regulations. Accordingly, where an agreement stands deemed to have been terminated, the grant of a fresh service connection in the same premises is subject to the condition stipulated therein, namely, clearance of the outstanding dues of the deemed-terminated consumer together with the applicable late payment surcharge. Such overriding language, however, must be construed within its proper statutory ambit and cannot automatically be extended to nullify an independent requirement of nexus under Regulation 13.9 of the 2010 Regulations, particularly where the applicant asserts an independent entitlement to a connection and disputes liability for the previous consumer’s dues. The two provisions must, therefore, be read harmoniously, keeping in view their respective fields of operation, the identity and legal status of the applicant, and the circumstances in which the earlier agreement was terminated. The principle that a non-obstante clause must receive effect according to its scope, without being construed more widely than necessary, is recognised in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao versus Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447. Accordingly, a “notwithstanding” clause, where applicable, gives the provision containing it overriding effect over inconsistent provisions within its legally defined scope; it does not, merely by its presence, dispense with an express condition such as proof of nexus.

It transpires that the nexus between the petitioner and all the nine erstwhile consumers at the premises concerned has been a matter of guess-work only by the respondent authority, excepting that between the erstwhile consumer namely, Sk. Rajob Ali and the present petitioner, the said person being father of the petitioner. Therefore, on careful consideration of the provision under Regulation13.9 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Licencees relating to Consumer Services) Regulations, 2010, it appears that the petitioner would be liable for payment of outstanding charges, if any, calculated in a pro-rated manner, since it is established beyond doubt that the petitioner has had a nexus with the previous consumer namely Sk. Rajob Ali.

As a matter of fact, Regulation4.6.4 has made provision for the mode and manner in which a new service connection can be given at the same premises where on the allegation of outstanding dues, the electricity connection has been severed and also the agreement has terminated after expiry of the statutory time period. That too, the said provision overrides other provisions in 2013 regulations and not otherwise. This provision does not touch or relate in any manner whatsoever with Regulation13.9 of the Regulations of 2010, so far as compulsory requirement of establishment of nexus between the present applicant and any erstwhile defaulted consumer at the same premises is concerned. Therefore, definitely the petitioner has to make good whatever defaulted outstanding amount of consumption bill is there, and of course along with late payment surcharge, but subject to the extent of default being made by the person with whom the petitioner has nexus.

In the present case, the respondent has assessed a claim amount under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to the tune of Rs 8,27,007/-. That claim relates to all the nine defaulters who have been the erstwhile occupants of the concerned premises. There is no document establishing nexus between eight of the said erstwhile occupants with the petitioner, which is positively required to be established in terms of Regulation13.9 of the 2010 Regulations.

In an event like this, the statute has provided for calculation on pro-rated basis.The argument that the non-obstante clause mentioned in Regulation4.6.4 in the Regulations of 2013 should be treated as overriding the said provision of 2010 Regulations is unacceptable in so far as the said provision of 2013 Regulations specifically deals with termination of agreement which deemed termination of agreement and reconnection and not about multiple defaulter occupants and nexus of the prospective consumer with them.

Hence, the present petitioner with whom the erstwhile defaulter consumer namely, Sk. Rajob Ali had a clear nexus being his father, in accordance with the said Regulations, the petitioner who seeks to have the electricity restored in the premises, shall be entitled for the same, subject to his payment of pro-rated outstanding charges as well as similar late payment surcharge.

Hence, let therefore, this writ petition be disposed of, directing the respondent authority to take all appropriate steps for setting up of a new connection for supply of electricity to the petitioner at the premises mentioned above, subject to his payment of proportionate amount of default by one erstwhile consumer namely, Sk. Rajob Ali, from amongst the entire assessed claim amount of Rs. 8,27,007/-, so assessed by the respondent authority under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the commensurate late payment surcharge as applicable.

Let the respondent authority execute the work of supply of new connection to the petitioner, subject to compliance of the direction as above by the petitioner, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of such compliance by the petitioner and also subject to his compliance with other formalities relating to providing new connection to a consumer as per law.

With the direction as above, the instant writ petition being No. WPA 28952 of 2026 is disposed of.

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