Sk. Shamsuddin v. C.E.S.C. Limited And ORS.

29.08. 2025 DL.9.

Court No.15 sg WPA 19375 of 2025 Sk. Shamsuddin Vs.

The C.E.S.C. Limited & Ors.

Mr. Saikat Chatterjee Ms. Oindrila Ghosh ....for the petitioner.

Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee ....for the CESC.

Mr. Subir Banerjee Mr. D. Gupta ....for the respondent nos. 5 to 8.

Ms. Sipra Mazumder Ms. Prativa Ghatak ....for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been enjoying an electricity connection through Meter No. 694319801 and Customer I.D. No. 12001194600.

The petitioner alleges that he is a tenant under respondent nos. 5 to 8 and that CESC, without assigning any reason, has disconnected the said line.

Learned advocate appearing for CESC, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner's line was disconnected only for the purpose of upgrading the cable from a "normal service cable" to a "co-axial cable."

It is further submitted that due to obstruction from respondent nos. 5 to 8, CESC could not complete the upgradation and restore the petitioner's connection.

Learned advocate appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 8 submits that the premises in question was originally numbered as P-30, which was subsequently divided into three parts, being premises nos. P-30, P-30A, and P-30B. After such partition, premises no. P-30 came to belong to respondent nos. 5 to 8. It is alleged that there already exists a line from which respondent nos. 5 to 8, being the landlords, provided electricity connection to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no necessity to install a separate meter in favour of the petitioner or to provide him with a separate electricity connection.

This Court, however, is unable to appreciate the contention advanced on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 8. If the petitioner is provided with electricity connection through a separate meter, no prejudice to the respondents/landlords is perceived by this Court.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is disposed of by directing CESC to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner within a fortnight, after upgrading the cable with the assistance of the local police authorities, if the same has not already been done. The cost of such police assistance shall be borne by the petitioner.

Let the name of the learned advocate, Mr. Subir Banerjee, be recorded in terms of the order dated 26th August, 2025, as appearing for the petitioner. ( Kausik Chanda, J. )