Smt. S. Malliga v. The Superintending Engineer And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...

WPA/708/2023 Smt. S Malliga Vs.

The Superintending Engineer and Others Mr. R Pradeep ... for the petitioner Mr. Tulsi Lall Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents July 25, 2023 (Manoj) Item No.8 Mr. Pradeep, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is occupying a government revenue land bearing survey no. 77/P, measuring about 200 sq.mtrs. situated at Japan nallah, Prothrapur, Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District. He has constructed a residential building upon the said land and is residing there with his family. On 17th April, 2023, he submitted a representation to the electricity authorities to provide him new electricity connection.

Surprisingly thereafter the petitioner has been communicated a status report dated 20th April, 2023 rejecting his prayer without any reason.

He submits that as an occupier the petitioner is entitled to electricity connection and in support of such contention reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Abhimanyu Mazumdar and others vs The Superintending Engineer and others reported in 2011 (2) CHN 768.

Mr. Lall, learned advocate appears on behalf of the electricity authorities and disputes the contention of the petitioner.

It is well settled that the electricity authorities have a statutory duty to supply electricity to an individual, who is in occupation of the premises Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Special Bench of this Court in the case of Abhimanyu Mazumdar -vs- Superintending Engineer, reported in 2011(2) CHN 768 that even a trespasser in settled possession is entitled to get electricity connection.

In view thereof, the order of rejection being a non-speaking one, is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17th April, 2023 afresh and to take appropriate steps towards grant of electricity connection in favour of the petitioner subject to compliance of necessary formalities, if any by the petitioner. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Tapabrata Chakraborty, J