Dr. S.K.Sheik Mohd. Ibrahim v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/508/2025 Dr. S. K. Sheik Mohd Ibrahim Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the petitioner Mr. S. C. Mishra ... for the respondent no.2 Mr.M. K. Thakur ... for the respondent no.3 November 6, 2025 [SR] Item No. 13 The writ petition is disposed of by directing the Administration i.e. the respondent no.2 to grant new electric connection to the petitioner from a separate meter in the premises in question, upon the petitioner complying with all formalities.

The existing meter was disconnected at the request of the consumer/landlord.

The petitioner had been consuming electricity from such meter, till it was disconnected, but the connection was in the name of the predecessor of the respondent no.3.

The Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman has not granted registration and the clinic is now closed. The registration was not granted for want of a no objection from the land lord, despite order of court.

The contention of Mr. S.C.Mishra is that, without a no objection from the landlord, the connection cannot be given. This Court is rather surprised to find that such argument is advanced at this stage, when the authority had already been

directed to supply electricity upon the land lord granting the no objection.

Such issue was already raised in the earlier writ petition before the Coordinate Bench and the land lord was asked to furnish the no objection within three days. She undertook before the Court that the no objection would be supplied within three days to the electricity authority. The same was not done. The land lord has expired on September 21, 2025. The order was passed on September 04, 2025, by a Coordinate Bench. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: "At this stage, learned Counsel for the private respondent undertakes that she shall file an application before Respondent No. 2 within three days for restoration of the electricity connection and further undertakes that the private respondent shall not resort to such methods to evict the petitioner from the said premises.

Since the landlordtenant dispute is already pending adjudication before the Civil Court, the private respondent, being the landlord, shall not attempt to disconnect the electricity supply of the petitioner except in accordance with due process of law. Respondent No. 2 is accordingly directed to re-energize the electricity connection of the petitioner within one day from the date of submission of the restoration application by the private respondent."

The Court records that the landlord also did not grant a no objection certificate for obtaining registration number under the Clinical Establishment Act, 2010. In the civil suit, a direction had been passed by the Civil Court directing the land lord to grant such no objection and in the event no objection was not granted, the petitioner would be entitled to produce the order of the civil court before the competent authority. Thus, the issue of registration under the Clinical Establishment Act, has been taken care of by the learned Civil Court, and nongrant of such registration cannot be a hindrance towards grant

of new electric connection, in view of the order of my predecessor.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order of the civil court and the Coordinate Bench stand in favour of granting electricity connection to the petitioner. The connection will not create any right in favour of the petitioner as regards his right, title and interest to enjoy the property or run the clinical establishment therefrom.

The respondent no.3 submits that he was not a party to the proceeding before the learned civil court and the order is not binding on him. This is a strange submission. The said respondent claims to be the sole heir and legal representative of the land lord/defendant and he has been substituted in the suit, on the basis of his own application.

If the respondent no.3 was aggrieved by the order passed by the learned civil court, the respondent no.3 was at liberty to challenge the same. He did not do so. He cannot reopen such issue in this proceeding.

Under the circumstances narrated herein above, this Court is bound by the order passed by the predecessor judge. The circumstances have changed since the land lord expired. Thus, none can grant the no objection. Hence, new connection shall be provided. It is made clear that the connection shall be granted without insisting on a no objection and shall be subject to the final decision of the civil court.

Parties to act in terms of the server copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Hon'ble Court. ( Shampa Sarkar, J. )