DATE OF FILING                    :   14.08.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :   15.09.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :   29.05.2015.  

Sri Shyamal Mudi,  

son of late Jaldhar Mudi,  

residing at Sanpur, Shibtala, P.S. Dasnagar,  

District Howrah,

PIN 711105……. ……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1. The A.E. & Station Manager of WBSEDCL Dasnagar,

     P.S. Dasnagar, District Howrah,

     PIN 711105.

2. Amal Mudi,

son of late Jaldhar Mudi,

residing at  Sanpur, Shibtala, P.S. Dasnagar,

District Howrah,

PIN 711105. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

             Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                               Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                Hon’ble Member       : Shri Subrata Sarker.      

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Shyamal Mudi, praying for a direction uponthe o.p. no. 1,Assistant Engineer & Station Manager of WBSEDCL Dasnagar, District Howrah, to effect the service of new electric connection in the name of the petitioner and debarring the o.p. no. 2 and his men and agents from hindering the o.p. no. 1 while effecting such service and also directed O/C, Dasnagar P.S., Howrah, to render necessary police help to implement the order of Forum.

    

2. The case of the petitioner is that he applied before the WBSEDCL for a new service connection and deposited the requisite money and on 25.04.2014 the Station Manager, CCC Dasnagar, lodged G.D. before O/C, Dasnagar P.S., to the effect that the approach was made on 25.4.2014 by him for giving new service connection in the premises of the petitioner but the wasresisted by some persons and so the o.p. no. 1 could not provide new electric service connection and the reason was that “Necessary way leave to be provided”. The petitioner received a letter on 15.5.2014 from the o.p. for hearing on 27.5.2014 regarding his new service connection wherein an objection was raised by one Amal Mudi, brother of the petitioner, that there is dispute over the domestic premises between the petitioner and the o.p. no. 2 and civil as well as criminal litigations are pending between them,even though the o.p. no. 2 got new electric service connection in his own name. Under the above circumstances, there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 1 for denying new service connection to the petitioner when electricity is considered as a part of modern city life.Petitioner gotno other alternative but to file this case.

    

3. The o.p. no. 1 appeared in this case and filed a written version stating that the case is not maintainable in law and in fact. But they submitted that on 19.4.2014 work order issued to the agency of o.p. no. 1, namely, M/S Ansuk Electrical Engineering and the agency attended this spot but there was strong resistance from the brother of the petitioner and the agency had to return without giving connection.There are several litigations pending between the brothers in civil and criminal courts and the petitioner is to provide necessary way leave and the o.p. no. 1 is ready to give service connection.

4. The o.p. no. 2 contested the case by filing a separate written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the o.p. no. 2 is the sole owner of the suit property and the o.p. no. 2 allowed the petitioner to use his premises and the petitioner with malafide intention did not pay the electric bill amounting to Rs. 14,578/- and the authority disconnected the said meter and now the o.p. no. 2 had to take a separate electric meter in his own name. The o.p. no. 1 was not allowed to give connection as per order of  civil court.

5.  Points for determination :

1. Whether the case is maintainable in law and in facts ?

2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file the case ?

3. Whether the complainant isentitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

     

6.  Decision with Reasons :

All the above issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to avoid repetition. In the instant case, the petitioner filed this case praying for new electric connection from the o.p., WBSEDCL CCC Dasnagar,  and the o.p. no. 1 submitted that there was obstruction from the o.p. no. 2 and they are unable to execute the work order issued by them through their agency. The o.p. no. 2 submitted that he is the sole owner of the property and petitioner is his own brother and  several litigations in the form of civil and criminal cases pending between the brothers and so the petitioner should not be allowed to get fresh electric connection in the house of the o.p. no. 2. Whatever may be the facts of the case and may be several litigations in the form of civil and criminal cases pending between the parties but no court can deny electricity and water to a person living in modern city life because these two are the lifeline for every citizen who cannot be deprived of his right to get fresh water and electricity. In the instant case, the petitioner and the o.p. no. 2 are two brothers and they have been residing in the same house and the o.p. no. 2 has his fresh electric connection and he disturbs the o.p. no. 1,  who went to the above premises to give fresh service connection to the petitioner and such act on the part of the o.p. no. 2 is not only unethical but also illegal and cannot be permitted by a court of law.  The petitioner not only brother of the o.p. no. 2 but also an occupier in the premises and he cannot be deprived of his right to get service connection so long as he is in possession of the premises and the o.p. no. 1 would effect  such service connection to the occupied premises of the petitioner if required with the help of police.

7. In view of above discussion and finding it is concluded that the petitioner has

succeeded in substantiating his claim to get electricity as prayed for. In the result, claim succeeds.

8. Court fees paid is correct.

Hence,                                    

O     R     D      E      R      E        D               

      That the C. C. Case No.  455  of 2014 ( HDF 455  of 2014 )  be  and the same is allowed  on contest but without costs considering the special circumstances of the case.

      The petitioner is  entitled to new electric service connection in his occupied premises as prayed for and the o.p. no. 1 is directed to effect such new electric connection to the occupied premises of the petitioner  and in the case of any hindrance from  any corner specially from the o.p. no. 2, the o.p. no. 1 would take the help of local P.S. who is directed to render all necessary police help to the o.p. no. 1 for effecting such new electric connection to the occupied  premises of the petitioner and the order would be complied within 30 days from the date of this order by the o.p. no. 1 and a copy of this order be also supplied to the parties including the O/C of the local P.S.  who would be ready for  rendering police help on the required date fixed by o.p. no. 1.  The o.ps. not complying the order within stipulated time, the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.  

      The case is disposed of accordingly.  

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    B. D.  Nanda   )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.