Smt. Sumala Roy v. The Superintending Engineer And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/34/2023 IA No.CAN/1/2023, CAN/2/2023 Smt Sumala Roy Vs.

The Superintending Engineer and others Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind ... for the appellant Mr. Tulsi Lall Mr. Rakesh Kumar .. for the respondent nos.1 to Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the respondent no.4 November 20, 2023 [SR] Item No.15

1. The appeal is at the instance of the respondents in WPA/260/2022. A writ petition was filed by Shri Niranjan Biswas in view of failure on the part of the respondent authorities in not granting electricity connection to the writ petitioner.

2. The petitioner has stated that he is an occupant of the property in question and in view of well settled legal position that a person in settled possession is entitled to electricity connection under section 43 of the Electricity Act and he should not have been denied the electricity connection.

3. The electricity department, in all fairness, did not oppose such prayer. But in view of the dispute between the petitioner and the appellant, the matter was left at the discretion of the Court. However, it was contended

on behalf of the electricity department that the people encroaching upon properties in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands have been getting electricity supply merely by filing an affidavit thereby seeking to legalise their otherwise unlawful occupation.

4. This contention was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. It is well settled that mere giving of an electricity connection to a person does not create any special equity or legal right in favour of such person. Moreover, in the Special Bench judgment in Abhimanyu Mazumder vs. Superintending Engineer reported in Laws(CAL) 2011 2 36 is held that that even an encroacher has a right to get electricity in this island.

5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the petitioner was a tenant and he does not have any independent right to get any electricity connection. We are unable to accept the said submission as the law on this point is clear. Even if the person is assumed to be a trespasser, he would be entitled to a separate electric connection so long he continued to remain in possession of the land in question.

6. The Electricity Department has informed that the electricity has already been given in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the learned Single Judge.

8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

9. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Soumen Sen, J. ) ( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. )