Bijan Bala v. The Superintending Engineer And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...
WPA/284/2022 Shri Bijan Bala ... Petitioner Vs.
The Superintending Engineer And others ... Respondents Mrs. C.Kala Devi ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mrs. Preeja Menon ... for the respondents July 27, 2022 [SR] Item No.25 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's application for getting a new electricity connection was refused on the ground that "providing of electricity connection to encroachments in A & N Islands on the basis of affidavit shall be stopped immediately under all respective divisions as is done under South Andaman Division till further directions/communications except the directions issued in respective judgments of Hon'ble Court orders for providing of electric connection to encroachers in A & N Islands". The said refusal was done on the basis of MOM dated 17.12.2021 under the Chairmanship of the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Department, Port Blair and copy endorsed by Executive Engineer (SAD), Electricity Department, Port Blair vide F.No.EE/SA/Tech/1-2/42 dated 07.01.2022.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that it is a well-settled legal position that a settled occupant of a property is entitled to get electricity connection, subject to compliance of formalities of course, within the contemplation of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is, thus, submitted that the refusal to give such electricity connection to the petitioner and insistence upon prior production of Court's order was illegal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits, in his usual fairness, that the Electricity Department does not have any objection in the event there is an order of the Court for supply of electricity. Otherwise, it is submitted, people encroaching upon properties in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, have been getting electricity supply merely by filing an affidavit, thereby seeking to legalize their otherwise unlawful occupation.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that Section 43 of the 2003 Act has been interpreted in clear terms by several judgments of this Court, holding that a person in settled possession of a property is entitled to get electricity connection, subject to compliance of formalities. Further, it is well settled that the mere giving of an electricity connection to a person does not create any special equity and/or legal right in favour of such person. However, in consonance with Section 43 of 2003 Act, it was de hors the
authority of the Electricity Department to refuse electricity connection without prior production of a Court order. In any event, the distribution licensee does not have the authority under the law to decide whether the occupation of a particular person of a particular property is in the capacity of encroacher or otherwise. It is squarely within the domain of the Civil Court to decide such issues finally.
Hence, WPA/284/2022 is disposed of by directing the respondents to take immediate steps for grant of new electricity connection to the petitioner, irrespective of any aspersion against the petitioner as regards the occupation of the petitioner being unauthorized, upon compliance of all due formalities by the petitioner and upon payment of all requisite charges for getting such connection. Such connection shall be given as expeditiously as possible, positively within a fortnight from the date of compliance of all formalities by the petitioner. It is, however, made clear in unequivocal terms that mere electricity connection shall not confer any special equity or legal right in favour of the petitioner other than which the petitioner already is entitled to in law.
No order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities. ( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )