Babul Sarkar v. The Superintending Engineer And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/102/2026 Babul Sarkar Vs The Superintending Engineer and Another Mr. Siddhartha Singha ...

for the petitioner Mr. S.C. Mishra ... for the respondents April 24, 2026 [SR] Item No.8 1.

The present application arises at the behest of the petitioner, who resides at Survey No. 12 at Kalinagar Village, Hut Bay, South Andaman, which is admittedly an encroached land, where the petitioner sought an electricity connection. In the previous around of litigation, since the said application was not being disposed of, a coordinate Bench, vide order dated January 29, 2025 passed in WPA/23/2025, had directed the respondent-authorities to decide the application made by the petitioner and the Assistant Engineer, respondent no. 3 therein, to communicate the decision to the petitioner thereafter. 2.

Subsequently, such connection still not being given, the petitioner had to approach this Court again by moving a writ petition bearing WPA/386/2025, which was disposed of on December 15, 2025 by another coordinate Bench. Before the said Bench, the respondent-authorities took a stand that since the petitioner already has another electricity connection in his own name, therefore he is not entitled to supply of any further electricity connection at the premise-in-question.

3.

Upon such submission being recorded, the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking transfer of the electricity connection at the Tsunami Shelter of the petitioner at Ongie Tikrey, Permanent Shelter No. B2-12A, to his present dwelling house. If such application was made, the respondent-authorities were directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order.

4.

However, even thereafter, the respondent-authorities refused to grant such transfer, inter alia on the ground that another electricity meter, bearing Consumer Account No. Z4/207C is installed on a building situated on revenue land registered in the name of the petitioner's father. 5.

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land registered in the name of the petitioner's father is different from the dwelling house of the petitioner, where the electric connection has been sought. 6.

Learned counsel for the respondent-authorities contends that the petitioner is already enjoying an electricity connection at the self-same dwelling house standing in the name of his father.

7.

However, the Court does not find within the four corners of the affidavit-in-opposition used by the respondent-authorities to the present writ petition any mention of the petitioner's dwelling house being the same as that of his father, where another electricity connection is already exiting in the name of the petitioner. Rather, as per the affidavit-in-opposition, the primary ground of refusal by the respondents was that the

dwelling structure has been constructed at the site where shifting is sought, which is recorded as Encroached Government Revenue Land under Survey No. 12.

8.

Further, it is contended in the opposition that the respondent-Department is not the land giving authority and is not empowered to regularise the encroachment; however, in the same breath, it has been stated that shifting of a meter is merely an administrative and/or technical process and does not confirm, validate or recognize any right, title and interest over the land-in-question, which are patently self-contradictory pleas.

9.

Thus, no whisper was raised by the respondents at any point of time, either before the previous Courts taking up the matter or in their affidavit-in-opposition, to the effect that the father's house of the petitioner, where another electricity connection is standing in the name of petitioner, is the same as the dwelling house of the petitioner, where the connection is now being sought. Thus, the respondent-authorities cannot go beyond such pleadings at this stage.

10.

The Court also finds that the order granting liberty to the petitioner to file a transfer application and directing the respondent-authorities to consider the same, dated December 15, 2025, was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the respondents. However, even at that juncture, no demur was raised by the respondent on the ground that the house of the petitioner's father and the petitioner's dwelling house, where the transfer is sought, are identical.

11.

Even otherwise, as admitted by the respondents in their affidavit in opposition, mere grant of electricity connection does not create any special equity or right or validate the character of possession of the occupier. Rather, under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, it is the mandate of law, which is also read into the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to have basic amenities such as electricity. Hence, the Court does not find anything on record to indicate that the dwelling house of the petitioner, where the connection is sought, is the selfsame house where the petitioner is enjoying another electricity connection. The mere fact that two electricity connections exist in two different places, even if in the name of the same person, does not create any bar to the person having such second connection.

12.

Accordingly, since the respondents have now taken a plea in their opposition that the connection at the Tsunami Shelter is not transferable and as there is nothing to show that the initial application of the writ petitioner on January 29, 2025 for fresh electricity connection was rejected at any point of time, WPA/102/2026 is disposed of by directing respondent no. 2 herein to immediately grant fresh electricity connection to the petitioner at his dwelling house at Survey No. 12 at Kalinagar village, Hut Bay, South Andaman in terms of the petitioner's first application for new connection, subject to the petitioner complying with due formalities in that regard. 13.

It is expected that such connection shall be given within a fortnight from date and/or from compliance of all formalities by the petitioner, whichever is later.

14.

There will be no order as to costs.

15.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)