Full Judgment
a) a writ in the nature of mandamous, commanding the respondent authority to take steps for removal of installed meter from the structure stated herein after.
2. The petitioners claiming to be the heirs and legal representatives of one Ajodhya Nath Maity submitted a representation dated August 14, 2006 describing it as:
An appeal for Surrender the Meter No.-3709498 and Present Additional Meter No.-0388696 & Consumer No.-51178036004 at Mouza-Sodepure, J.L. No.-8, Touzi No.- 194, R.S. Dag No.-273, R.S. Khatian No.- 453/2, Holding No.-46 and Ward No.-13 under Panihati Municipality at 147, Nilgunj Road, Sodepur, 24-Parganas (North).
3. By the representation the petitioners requested the District Engineer, North Suburban Division of CESC to accept their decision to surrender the two meters. Alleging that CESC did not accept their offer to surrender the meters, they brought this petition around four years after making the representation.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the consumer of the supply through the Meter No.3709498 was the petitioners deceased mother (Prativa Rani Maity) who had let out a portion of her property to one Shanti Sengupta using whose name someone obtained the additional Meter No. 0388696 suppressing the fact that Shanti had died as back as 1997, CESC was under an obligation to accept the petitioners decision to surrender the meters and remove the service lines and other installations from the premises.
5. There is nothing to support the petitioners claim that their deceased mother was the consumer of the supply through the Meter No.3709498. On the contrary, CESC has produced a departmental letter dated September 10, 2010 clearly recording therein that Shanti is the recorded consumer of the supply. Admittedly, neither the petitioners are nor was their deceased mother the consumer of the supply through the other meter. There is no provision in the Electricity Act, 2003 or in the regulations made thereunder dealing with the subject of surrender of a meter. The provisions of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007, however, provide for disconnection of supply on certain grounds, and one of them is:
Disconnection on request under reg.4.4.1.
6. The provisions for disconnection on request are quoted below:
4.4.1 The licensee shall disconnect the supply of energy to a consumer, if the latter makes such a request in writing, within two working days of making the written request. It shall be the duty of the consumer to clear all the outstanding payments payable by him to the licensee except the last bill for supply till the date of disconnection before making a request for such disconnection. The consumer shall collect the last bill from the licensee and make the payment. In default, the amount shall be adjusted by the licensee against his security deposit.
7. Therefore, the question is whether the petitioners claiming to be the heirs and legal representatives of the landlady of the deceased consumer were entitled to ask the licensee to disconnect the supply of energy through the two meters in question.
8. It is evident from the provision of reg.4.4.1 of the regulations that a request for disconnection of a supply of energy can be made only by a consumer. Hence if the petitioners were consumers of the supply of energy through the two meters in question, then they were entitled to make the request for disconnection.
9. The definition of the word consumer in s.2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is as follows:
(15) consumer means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;
10. Here the licensee was supplying energy through the main meter to Shanti who rented the premises from the petitioners deceased mother. It is not the case that after Shantis death the petitioners are using the premises and the electricity supplied thereto through the meter. Hence they are not the consumer of the supply through the main meter.
11. As to the additional meter, they are admittedly not the consumer.
12. The petitioners, not the consumer of the supply through the meters, had no right to request CESC to disconnect the supply through them and remove the service lines and installations from the premises. It is nobodys case that the consumers using the electricity supplied to the premises through the meters are in default on the energy charge claimed by CESC regularly raising bills.
13. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed.
14. No costs. Certified xerox.