Gokul Chandra Ghosh v. West Bengal State Electricity Disatribution Comapny Limited And ORS
16.03.2022 TN WPA No.3774 of 2022 Gokul Chandra Ghosh Vs.
The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others Mr. Sailendranath Chakraborty .... for the petitioner Mr. Srijan Nayak, Mrs. Rituparna Maitra .... for the WBSEDCL Mr. Sabyasachi Dey .... for the respondent no.7 Learned counsel for the private respondent no.7, at the outset, seeks leave to file a supplementary affidavit incorporating certain relevant documents which have not been made a part of the writ petition. However, such supplementary affidavit is considered unnecessary in view of the nature of the order which is proposed to be passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (for short "the WBSEDCL") has given any electricity connection to the submersible pumps of
the respondent nos.7 and 8 despite the said respondents having failed to comply with all formalities, which were required as prerequisites for getting such connection. It is further submitted that when the petitioner gave a representation in such regard to the WBSEDCL, the same was not dealt with by the Distribution Licensee, for which the present writ petition has been preferred.
Learned counsel appearing for the Distribution Licensee, on instruction, specifically disputes that any electricity connection was given at all to the private respondents. As such, it is argued that there is no cause of action for the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the private respondent no.7 categorically contends that the said private respondent no.7 had furnished all necessary documents and complied with all requisite formalities prior to having an electricity connection to her submersible pump. As such, the writ petition, it is argued, is not maintainable.
It appears from the submissions of the parties that there is lack of consensus between the Distribution Licensee and the private respondents themselves as regards whether the electricity connection was given to the submersible pumps of the private respondents.
If it is assumed that no such connection was given at all, it cannot be said that the writ petition has any justification or cause of action.
On the other hand, if it is assumed that there is an existing electricity connection in favour of the private respondents in respect of latter's submersible pump, even then, since the petitioner is merely a neighbour and a busybody, the petitioner does not have any direct locus standi pertaining to the cause of action pleaded in the writ petition, for challenging the electricity connection allegedly given to the private respondents.
That apart, it is not for the writ court to examine the veracity of the documents sought to be produced by the private respondent in support of the veracity and legality of their electricity connection and title in respect of the property-in-dispute. It is beyond the scope of the writ jurisdiction to enter into such a detailed enquiry requiring adduction of evidence on facts.
In view of the above observations, production of the documents sought to be relied on by the private respondent is rendered academic, since the writ petition, in any event, is not maintainable for lack of locus standi of the petitioner and for absence of a proper cause of action vis-à-vis the writ petitioner.
Hence, WPA No.3774 of 2022 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
It is made clear that the existence or nonexistence and the legality (or the contrary) of the alleged electricity connection given to the private respondents and the question of right, title or interest of the private respondents in the property-in-question, have not been gone into at all by this court. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)