Tara Thakur v. Cesc Ltd & ORS
08.01.2021 pp/ sb Ct23
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 3053 of 2020 Tara Thakur Vs.
CESC Limited & Ors.
Mr. Dhananjoy Banerjee, Mr. Falguni Banerjee ... For the petitioner.
Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee ... For CESC Limited.
The petitioner says that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of a flat comprising of two rooms at the ground floor (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted portion) at premises no. R. N. Guha Road, Police Station Dum Dum, Kolkata - 700 074 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The petitioner had applied for an electric meter in the petitioner's name and a supply through such meter to the tenanted portion for petitioner's use and enjoyment. CESC Limited has expressed inability to accede to the petitioner's request for a separate supply by a letter dated 27th August, 2019. Being aggrieved by such action of CESC Limited, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. On behalf of CESC Limited, it is submitted that pursuant to the petitioner's application an inspection was carried out when it was found that there is an existing meter wherefrom the petitioner
derive supply. Granting a separate meter to the petitioner, according to the CESC Limited, will amount to splitting of load for getting the benefit of lower charges. CESC Limited relies upon a letter dated 27th Agust, 2019, appearing at page 19 of the writ petition in this regard.
The letter dated 27th August, 2019 is vague.
It does not say in whose name the meter stands from which the petitioner is said to be deriving electricity. On a query from Court it is submitted by CESC Ltd. as also the petitioner that the petitioner is not a recorded consumer of CESC Limited. The petitioner is, therefor, not asking for a second meter, which will grant the petitioner an advantage to distribute the consumption of electricity to be recorded in two meters in such a manner to avail the benefit of paying cost of electricity per unit at a lower rate being in a lower slab in respect of the two meters. There is, as such, no question of splitting of load in the instant case and the petitioner also does not come within the ambit of Clause 14 of Regulation 53 published by West Bengal Regulatory Commission on 2nd April, 2013, for matter being referred to Ombudsman for adjudication. That apart and in any event this stand of the licensee will encourage a landlord. In a case where the tenant derives electricity from a meter standing in the name of a
landlord, the landlord, if has a dispute with the tenant will disconnect the supply through the meter standing in the name of the landlord to leave the tenant without electricity. In such a situation if the licensee denies a supply to the tenant on the ground of splitting of load, the tenant will be without electricity and may have to vacate the premises. The tenant will thus be evicted without due process of law. A licensee cannot be a party to such an act. It cannot also be alleged that splitting of load will take place in the instant case when separate flat/unit owners/occupiers have separate meters from an existing supply main unlike a case where bulk supply is made at a premises through a single meter.
In facts and circumstances as aforesaid, I direct CESC Limited to instal a new meter in the name of the petitioner and grant a connection to the petitioner subject to payment of all costs and expenses as applicable and upon compliance of statutory requirements within 31st January, 2021. CESC Limited will not insist upon a "no objection" from the landlord for granting the new meter to the petitioner.
safety measures.
The Officer-in-Charge/Inspector-in-Charge of the police station within the limit of which the tenanted premises is situated, shall ensure that there is no breach of peace at or around the said premises while the officials of CESC Limited visit for inspection or for installing the new meter. The officials of CESC Limited shall, if necessary, inform the said Officer-inCharge/Inspector-in-Charge well in advance about the date and tentative time of their proposed visit to the said premises.
Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the writ petition and the same is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
Since I have not called for any affidavits, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by respondents.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties upon compliance with the necessary formalities.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)