Subha Bhattacharya v. Cesc Limited And Others

AD. 9.

March 10, 2022.

MNS.

(Through Video Conference) WPA No. 4126 of 2022 Subha Bhattacharya Vs.

CESC Limited and others Mr. Bidyut Halder, Mr. Indranil Halder ...for the petitioner.

Ms. Sumouli Sarkar ...for the CESC Limited.

Ms. Mitali Mukherjee, Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya ...for the respondent no. 4.

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to a previous direction of this Court, the CESC Limited took appropriate inspection of the premises for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the petitioner.

However, after such inspection, the CESC Limited has raised an objection in giving such connection, primarily on the ground of apprehended splitting of load for enjoying lower tariff benefit. It is submitted that after the previous order having been passed by this Court, it does not lie in

the mouth of the CESC Limited to refuse such connection.

Learned counsel appearing for the CESC Limited controverts such submissions and places reliance on the communication dated February 8, 2022 given in writing by the CESC to the petitioner, inter alia, alleging the apprehended splitting of load for enjoying lower tariff benefit.

It appears from the said document that a detailed reasoning was given by the CESC Limited in its communication to the petitioner as to why it had come to the conclusion that the application for electric supply was intended for the purpose of splitting of load for enjoying lower tariff benefit. Since the extant Regulations provide that the Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) is the appropriate authority to redress such disputes, WPA 4126 of 2022 is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned GRO with the dispute, as raised in the present writ petition, pertaining to the alleged splitting of load for enjoying lower tariff benefit.

If so approached, the GRO shall decide the said dispute upon hearing all interested parties in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of such reference.

There will be no order as to costs.

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.)