Smti.Kayal Vizhi v. The Superintending Engineer And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/103/2025 Smt Kayal Vizhi Vs The Superintending Engineer and another Mr. Ruban Antony ... for the petitioner Mr. S.C.Mishra ... for the respondents February 28, 2025 [SR] Item no.5 1.

Mr. Ruban Antony, learned advocate appears for the petitioner. Mr. S.C.Mishra, learned advocate appears for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner claims electricity supply as an encroacher of a particular piece of land. The petitioner submitted his application Annexure P-2 at page 11 to the writ petition. The same has not yet been disposed of.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Department submits that the application shall be disposed of shortly. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner shall be disposed of by the appropriate authority of the Electricity Department strictly in accordance with law and following the relevant regulation but positively within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

4.

In the event, the disposal of the application provides for supply of electricity, then, the supply of electricity shall be effected by the Electricity Department in favour of the petitioner positively within 72 working hours from the date of disposal of the application, in accordance with law and upon compliance of

all the formalities including making of payment required to be complied with by the petitioner.

5.

In the event, the decision of the Electricity Department goes against the petitioner, then, the reasons shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week from the date of disposal by the Electricity Department.

6.

This order shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner if the petitioner is not eligible to receive his claim strictly in accordance with law.

7.

This order also shall not create any right in favour of the petitioner attached with the land and no right shall be created in favour of any assignee or successor-in-interest of the petitioner.

8.

Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in this writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

9.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition WPA/103/2025 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

( Aniruddha Roy, J. )