Shri.Suklal Halder v. The Superintending Engineer And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/112/2025 Shri Suklal Halder Vs The Superintending Engineer and others Mr. Prakesh Minj ... for the petitioner Mr. S.C.Mishra ... for the respondents February 28, 2025 [SR] Item no.11 1.

Mr. Prakash Minj, 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 application submitted by the petitioner stands rejected.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Department submits that the petitioner has applied in terms of the press note published in the newspaper dated April 07, 2003. Learned counsel for the Electricity Department submits that the petitioner is not a qualified candidate in terms of the said press note. Accordingly, his claim for electricity connection has been rejected.

4.

Be that as it may, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply afresh strictly in accordance with law by providing all necessary documents as required under the relevant regulation and applicable law.

5.

In the event, such an application is submitted by the petitioner, the appropriate authority of the Electricity

Department shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law but positively within three weeks from the date submission of such application by the petitioner. If the petitioner succeeds, the Electricity Department shall provide electricity connection within 72 working hours from the date of consideration of the application, upon compliance of all formalities and all charges and levies required to be paid by the petitioner. 6.

In the event, the prayer for electricity is rejected, the Electricity Department shall communicate the reason for rejection to the petition within two weeks from the date of such rejection.

7.

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

8.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition WPA/112/2025 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

( Aniruddha Roy, J. )