A.Jyothi v. The Superintending Engineer And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WPA/939/2023 A. Jyothi Vs.

The Superintending Engineer and others Ms. Gloria Mary ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents September 27, 2023 [SR] Item No.13 Challenging the decision of the Electricity Department in rejecting the prayer for providing the electric connection at the site possessed by the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.

Though there is no written communication given to the petitioner, but the information uploaded on the official website of the Electricity Department indicates that the Technical Committee has decided not to provide any electric connection over the encroached land. Till date, the petitioner has not been thrown out of the possession. A occupier of the land, if applied for electric connection, the law does not provide that he must be a rightful owner in respect of the land. The occupier constitutes a class in itself and cannot be segregated into a different compartments like a lawful or unlawful occupier.

Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, cast a duty on every distribution licensee to provide electricity on an application made by the owner or the occupier of any premises. The premises has been defined in section 2 (51) of the said Act to mean any land, building or structure. There is no classification made in the said definition of the premises that it must be occupied or owned by a rightful owner or a person occupying on the basis of a grant or the permission.

The occupier has not been defined in the Act but is clearly understood that the moment Section 43(1) of the Act

uses the term occupier of any premises, it implies that the a person in settled possession satisfies the definition of a occupier and therefore, it is not acceptable that the prayer for providing the electricity shall be denied on such count. The order of the Technical Committee of the Electricity Department is set aside. The respondent is directed to process the application filed by the petitioner and shall dispose of the same within one month from the date of communication of this order and it goes without saying that the ground which has been taken being set aside in the impugned order shall not be insisted and/or repeated by the said authorities.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with requisite formalities.

( Harish Tandon, J. )