B.Maha Laxmi v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/211/2025 B. Maha Laxmi Vs.
The Superintending Engineer and others Mr. Lokesh Chezian ... for the petitioner Mr. S. C. Mishra ... for the respondents April 11, 2025 [SR] Item No.5 The present writ petition has been preferred challenging, inter alia, the denial on the part of the respondents to grant electricity connection to the petitioner.
Mr. Lokesh Chezian, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in settled possession of the government revenue land as detailed in paragraph 3 of the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the said land) and he is residing in the said land upon construction of a dwelling house. He submits that the petitioner submitted an online application for grant of electricity connection on 6th March, 2025 along with all relevant documents. Subsequent thereto, it was uploaded in the website that his application has been rejected on the basis of a remark "as per JERC Regulation 2018 Clause No.5.30 a NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE from owner of the premises is required."
He argues that the reason given for rejection of the petitioner's application is not sustainable in law and an identical issue has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with similar writ petitions and an order
has been passed in the same on 19th June, 2024 wherein it has, inter alia, been held that 'Clause 5.30 of the Supply Code, in no manner whatsoever, fetters the right of an occupant to get electricity connection even without any no objection certificate being produced from the owner.
He contends that in view of the said judgment, there can be no hindrance towards grant of electricity connection to the petitioner.
Mr. S. C. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that apart from the reason given towards rejection of the petitioner's application, he also does not fulfill other formalities, as would be explicit from the report submitted by the competent authority upon inspection wherein it has, inter alia, been stated that the applicant has not completed earthing in the premises. A copy of the said report, as submitted, be kept on record.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. It appears from the document annexed at page -19 of the writ petition that the petitioner's application has been rejected as per the JERC Regulation, 2018, clause 5.30. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 19th June, 2024 has already held that clause 5.30 does not in any manner fetter the right of the occupant to get electricity connection. I do not find any reason to differ with such finding. As regards nonfulfillment of other formalities, it needs to be stated that the electricity connection can only be granted subject to compliance of other formalities.
In the said conspectus, the reason towards rejection of the petitioner's application as incorporated in the document annexed at page-19 of the writ petition is set aside and the respondents, particularly the respondent no.3, are directed to take appropriate steps towards grant of electricity connection in favour of the petitioner, subject to compliance of other formalities by the petitioner.
The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. As the writ petition has been disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations leveled against the respondents shall be deemed to have been denied.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities.
( Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. )