Dr Bikram Panda v. The General Manager (Commercial) Cesc Ltd And ORS

AD. 32.

May 12, 2022.

MNS.

WPA No. 7359 of 2022 Dr. Bikram Panda Vs.

The General Manager (Commercial), Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. and others Mr. Debasis Kar, Mr. Husen Mustafi ...for the petitioner.

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

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta ...for the respondent no. 4.

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

The grievance of the petitioner is that, although the concerned electricity meter originally stood in the name of the father of the defendant, who was the erstwhile tenant, subsequent to the demise of his father, the meter was transferred in the name of the landlord/private respondent.

It is also submitted that an eviction suit is pending at the instance of the landlord against the present petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the CESC Limited submits that, initially, upon a No Objection Certificate (NOC) having been produced by the respondent no. 4, the line had been transferred in the name of the said respondent.

However,

subsequently, after detecting the fact of demise of the original consumer on receiving an objection to that effect, the CESC Limited sent a notice to the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has to apply for transfer in the petitioner's name in respect of the said meter and has already made arrangements for reverting back of the electricity meter in the name of the petitioner.

In view of such submissions, WPA 7359 of 2022 is disposed of by directing the writ petitioner to file an application in appropriate form, seeking transfer of the electricity meter-in-question in the petitioner's name in place and stead of his deceased father, the original consumer, within a week from date.

Upon such application being made, the CESC Limited shall decide on the same, subject to compliance of due formalities by the petitioner on that score, as expeditiously as possible.

Since the name in the electricity meter has already been transferred to the petitioner, no further direction is required in that regard.

However, it is made clear that the respective rights and contentions of the petitioner and the private respondent no. 4 in the civil suit have not been entered into on merits by this court. It will be open to the competent civil court to decide the said issues in accordance with law independently, without

being influenced by any of the observations made herein.

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.)