Ajay Kumar Ghosh v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

AD. 27.

February 19, 2021.

MNS.

W. P. A. 11558 of 2020 (Via video conference) Ajay Kumar Ghosh Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Kallol Basu, Mr. Sougata Mitra, Ms. A. Halder, Ms. Ankita Dey ... for the petitioner.

Mr. Sujit Shankar Koley ...for the respondent-authorities.

Affidavit-of-service as well as supplementary affidavit filed in Court today be taken on record.

The writ petitioner contends that he had been entrusted with the work relating to erection, transport, repairs and maintenance of electric supply in the Ajodhya Pahar area, in particular the Baghmundi Foot Hill, for a considerable length of time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that, recently, a formal order has been issued by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Purulia (D) Division, altering the description of the work.

By a further memo dated December 24, 2020, the existing circuit length of Baghmundi 33/11 KV Sub-station has been reduced to the category of below 500 CKM without assigning any reason.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that such arbitrary reduction of work, despite there being no adverse performance report against the petitioner, is de hors the law and principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel contends that such unlawful reduction of work assigned to the petitioner ought to be set aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities submits that the petitioner's quantum of work, as such, has not been reduced in the true sense of the term. The petitioner was advised merely to withdraw an additional vehicle with driver for the work. For the purpose of facilitating smooth distribution of electricity in the Ajodhya Pahar area, a decision was taken by the respondent-authorities for distribution of such work by appointing additional contractors for repair work of the other feeder lines. The original voltage of the feeder line was also reduced for such purpose.

It appears from the rival contentions of the parties that no fundamental right and/or legal right of the petitioner has been violated by the respondent-authorities. The reduction of power in a particular feeder line was done for public good and was deemed necessary by the authorities.

Such reduction, ipso facto, does not confer any legal right on the petitioner and/or furnish any cause of action for the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition.

In any event, the petitioner's work has not been curtailed, apart from a mere request to the petitioner to reduce one additional vehicle with driver for such work.

In these circumstances, there is no occasion to interfere with the grievances made in the writ petition.

Accordingly, W. P. A. No. 11558 of 2020 is dismissed without any order as to costs.

There will, however, 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)