Smti.Arati Mazumder v. The Superintending Engineer And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** WPA/537/2024 Smt. Arati Mazumdar Vs The Superintending Engineer and others Ms. Nazneen ... for the petitioner Mr. S.C.Mishra ... for the respondents January 10, 2025 [AKB] Item Nos.1 The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking supply of electricity in her RCC building which is situated on an encroached piece of government revenue land being part of survey no. 393/P measuring an area 150 Sq.mtrs. situated at Bhatubasti village, Sri Vijaya Puram, Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman.
Through the said writ petition she has prayed for the following:- "a) A writ or writs in nature of mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities to act in accordance with law. b) A writ or writs in nature of mandamus do issue directing the respondent No.3 herein above to provide electricity in the dwelling house of the petitioner standing on the part of the land bearing Survey No. 393/p measuring area 150 Sq. Mtrs, Situated at Bathubasthi Village, Srevijayapuram (Port Blair) Tehsil, South Andaman.
c) A writ or writs in nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit the relevant records before this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing of this case to render justice in the matter.
d) Other or further writ and/or direction and/or order as your lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
The learned counsel representing the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is an encroacher upon specified government revenue land and after making construction upon the
said land in the year 2016 she has been residing in the said building since then and has sought for supply of electricity which be provided to her. During the submission the learned counsel representing the petitioner has submitted that let the existing connection be disconnected and let a fresh connection be given in the name of the petitioner.
Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner has relied upon the fact that she be provided with electricity but on inspection it has revealed that there is already an electrical meter installed in the RCC building bearing the consumer no. H1/2298 which is installed in the name of one Jaya Prakash and the same is in the same premises which has been erected on encroached government revenue land. He further submits that the object of providing electricity is for residential purpose only but in this present case in spite of there being an existing supply of electricity the petitioner is seeking further electrical connection. Relying upon the aforesaid fact the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.
On perusal of the writ petition and from the submission of the learned counsels it transpires that from the under taking given by the petitioner she has submitted that there is no other electrical connection provided in the same encroached land. While from the contention of the parties it reveals that there is an existing electrical connection which has been admitted by the petitioner in her affidavit-in-reply.
Thus from the aforementioned facts it transpires that there is an existing supply of electricity and electrical meter already installed in the said RCC building bearing the consumer no. H1/2295 in the name of one Jaya Prakash so there is contradiction in the facts submitted by the petitioner in her affidavit and in the affidavit-in-reply. The purpose of providing electricity is to have the necessities fulfilled which gets frustrated from her submission only.
It is worth mentioning that in the petition the petitioner has not mentioned as regards to the existence of any prevalent electrical meter. She has prayed for a fresh electrical connection and has also stated that there is no existing supply of electricity in the said premises.
The submission made by learned counsel representing the petitioner at this stage that the existing meter be disconnected cannot be entertained as there being contradictory statements made in the writ petition and in the affidavit-in-reply and the fact of prevalent electricity connection being unearthed on behalf of the respondents.
Considering the aforementioned discussion and also considering the fact that the writ petitioner has not approached
this Court in clean hand the present writ petition is dismissed without any cost.
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)