AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition assails an order dated July 02, 2026 passed by the District Magistrate, South 24-Prganas in a proceeding conducted pursuant to an order dated March 12, 2026 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 26680 of 2025.
The private respondent no.8 had approached this Court by filing WPA 26680 of 2025 alleging inaction on the part of the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities in effecting electricity supply to the private respondent’s residential premises. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated March 12, 2026 referring the matter to the relevant District Magistrate in terms of the Works of Licensee Rules 2006 and directing the District Magistrate petitioners as regards petitioners’ separate electricity connection.
Pursuant to the said order, the District Magistrate initiated proceedings and passed the order dated July 02, 2026 which has been impugned herein, thereby directing the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities to effect supply in favour of the private respondent no.8 through the “proposed alignment”. Accordingly supply has been effected in favour of the private respondent no.8.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated July 02, 2026.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the District Magistrate has proceeded on a wholly erroneous basis that the petitioner and the private respondent are co-sharers in respect of the property in question.
It is further submitted that the order dated July 02, 2026 is wholly perverse inasmuch as none of the documents relied on by the petitioners was looked into by the District Magistrate while passing the order impugned.
It is next submitted that in terms of the said order, electricity supply has been effected in favour of the private respondent no.8, by erecting a pole on the petitioners’ land.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent no.8 fairly submits that the recording in the impugned order that the private respondent no.8 and the petitioner are co-sharers in respect of the property in question is factually incorrect inasmuch the private respondent no.8 is not a co-sharer of the petitioners in respect of the said property.
It is further submitted that, in any case, such recording would not affect the petitioners adversely inasmuch as the relevant pole has been erected/installed at Dag No.317 and the petitioners are the owners of Dag No.318. It is submitted that since the pole has been erected on a property which is not owned by the petitioners therefore, the petitioners have no reason to make a grievance. It is submitted that Dag No. 317 where the pole has been installed is a common passage.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners, however, submits that the pole has been installed at Dag No. 318 and not Dag No. 317 and Dag No. 318 is owned by the petitioners along with other persons.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the WBSEDCL Authorities submits that the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities have acted strictly in terms of the order passed by the District Magistrate.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material-on-record.
It is not in dispute that the District Magistrate has proceeded on an erroneous basis that the petitioner and the private respondent are co-sharers in respect of the property in question. The order dated July 02, 2026 does not reveal that any document that has been submitted either by the petitioners or the private respondent has been considered while arriving at the ultimate conclusion. The order dated July 02, 2026 therefore deserves interference and is hereby held to be of no effect excepting the fact that this order would not nullify the electricity supply in favour of the private respondent.
In such view of the matter, while the present arrangement of the private respondent getting electricity supply is not being disturbed, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the District Magistrate once again.
Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the file of the District Magistrate for fresh consideration without being influenced by the order dated July 02, 2026. The petitioner as well as the private respondent will be entitled to place all the documents in support of their respective cases before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate will get a fresh inspection conducted by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer and/or any other competent Officer which the District Magistrate may depute for such purpose. The District Magistrate shall ensure that the Officer conducting inspection gives adequate advance notice to the petitioner, the private respondent as well as the WBSEDCL Authorities so that the inspection is conducted in the presence of all parties.
It would be specifically ascertained by the District Magistrate as to whether the pole has been installed on the property owned by the petitioner or on a common passage.
In case it is found that the pole through which the electricity is being supplied to the private respondent has been installed at the property of the petitioner, the District Magistrate will pass appropriate orders for shifting of such pole from the petitioners’ property to a common passage so that the electricity supplied to the private respondent may be continued therefrom.
It is clarified that since the petitioners are not responsible for the installation of pole over the petitioners’ property (if it is ultimately found to be so), the costs for such shifting would have to be borne by the private respondent.
The District Magistrate shall endeavor to conclude the exercise as aforesaid as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from date.
Needless to mention that the District Magistrate shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, within the aforesaid time frame and communicate the same to all the parties within a week from passing thereof.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim made by the petitioners as well as the private respondents and the aspect as to whether the pole has been installed on the property of the petitioner or not will have to be ultimately decided by the District Magistrate and consequential order for shifting thereof would be required to be passed in case it is found necessary.
With the aforesaid observation, WPA 18192 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.