V.Kunjamu v. The Superintending Engineer And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/1021/2022 V. Kunjamu Vs.
The Superintending Engineer and others Mr. Prakash Minj ... for the petitioner Mr. Tulsi Lall Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents January 18, 2023 [SR] Item No.9 The writ petition is against the inaction on the part of the respondent authority to ensure electricity connection to the newly raised construction of the writ petitioner, even after observing the formalities under the law.
The case, as presented by the writ petitioner, is that the name of the writ petitioner has been duly recorded in the Record of Rights in Form -F, issued by the respondent authority concerned.
Admittedly, there are 34 co-owners with respect to the undivided property, out of which the petitioner, upon purchase, has raised the residential house in the subject property under reference.
The petitioner, upon bearing expenses, has raised a construction so as to reside therein permanently, as presently the writ petitioner suffers from paucity of accommodation in a rented house.
The children of the writ petitioner are pursuing studies, one of which in class XI and another in Class VIII. The grievance raised by the writ petitioner is that unless the electricity is given to the house, newly constructed by the writ petitioner, not only education of the children of the writ petitioner will be impaired, but there will be fundamental violation of the basic rights, ordinarily enjoyed by citizen of country.
Upon narrating such facts, the petitioner submits that merely for resistance of the co-owners, the petitioner should not have been denied from enjoying the electricity, which is the basic amenity of life.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate led by Mr.Tulsi Lall, learned advocate representing State/respondents raises objection submitting that when there is a specific objection of the co-owners, the concerned respondent authority may not be compelled to ensure electricity connection, merely on the prayer proposed by the writ petitioner.
It is further submitted by the respondents that there is nothing produced by the writ petitioner about the completion of residential structure of writ petitioner, and without consideration of which, the respondent authority will be in difficult state to ensure electricity connection, irrespective of the co-owners objection raised in this case.
Having considered the submissions of both sides, it appears that the petitioner, being a stranger, has purchased
undivided share from undivided property, and subsequently raised structure incurring expenses therefor. When the children of the writ petitioner are pursuing their respective studies, this Court is of the view that, in the event of completion of construction, the electricity connection should be ensured, irrespective of the objection of the co-owners of the undivided property, which is, of course, subject to the decision of partition suit, if any, for undivided property. The enjoyment of the electricity is a basic right, otherwise peaceful life may not be enjoyed, and the education pursuing children of the writ petitioner should not be impaired in the way, even in the absence of electricity.
The writ petition is thus disposed of directing the concerned respondent authority to ensure electricity connection within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order to the concerned authority, subject to observance of the formalities, if any, upon holding an enquiry from the end of the concerned respondent authority under the law, in order to ascertain the extent of construction already reached in the subject property under reference. It is further clarified that the enjoyment of electricity may not be delayed in the name of conducting enquiry by the respondent authority concerned.
( Subhasis Dasgupta, J. )