Pradyut Ghosh, Howrah Vs. the Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Howrah and Others - Court Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya, Member.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.10.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in Case No. 22/2012, by which the complaint was rejected for taking to falsehood by the Complainant.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal contending mainly that the Ld. district Forum did not consider the petition filed on behalf of Joydeb Ghosh and others who filed No Objection for electric connection to the Complainant. However, the OP No.4 also made a false statement in the W.V. that Tushar and Srikanta are alive, though they are dead. None of the OPs did plead in their respective W.V.s regarding such an anomaly on the part of the Complainant, otherwise the Complainant could have taken recourse of amendment of the complaint. The entire mistake has been done by the Lawyer and his Clerk concerned, and the Complainant had no intention to adopt falsehood. Instead, the Ld. District Forum ought to have considered that the Complainant only prayed for supply of electric connection in his name which is an essential supply. As is evident, the Complainant disclosed as per query of the Ld. District Forum that his father is alive and 80 years old, which denotes that he had not the intention to hoodwink the Ld. District Forum and he had made no such deliberate and conscious attempt to get the new electric meter showing the separate share of his father.

In short, the case of the Complainant is that he is co-owner and occupier in respect of bastu land measuring about 05 satak together with structures situated at R.S. Dag No. 2665, L.R. Dag No. 2592 under L.R. Khatian No. 1253, L No. 9 within Mouza Kuldanga, P.S. Panchla, District-Howrah by virtue of inheritance from Batakrishna Ghosh. He applied for a new electric connection for domestic purpose vide application no. 1000316469. After inspection, quotation for supply of new electric connection was issued by the OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant vide letter dated 25.09.2011 directing him to deposit the quotation amount of Rs.453/-, which was deposited on 31.10.2011. But, as, in spite of receipt of the quotation amount, the OPs did not supply new electric connection in favour of the Complainant, the same is a total deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the case.

On the other hand, the case of the OP Nos. 1 to 3 is that the Complainant applied before the OP No.1 on 29.08.2011 for new electric connection at his premises. Thereafter, the authorized agent of the OPs, M/s. Bag Electrical Enterprise made a field inspection on 11.09.2011 in presence of the Complainants representative, viz., Alpana Ghosh, when no objection was raised from any quarter. Accordingly, a quotation was served on 25.09.2011 amounting to Rs.453/-, which was deposited by the Complainant on 31.10.2011. In the meantime, on 24.09.2011, one Uttam Ghosh submitted a written objection before the OP No.1 regarding such electric connection in favour of the complainant and also informed by a letter dated 02.11.2011 that a civil suit being T.S. No. 24/2004 filed by him and others against Tushar Kanti Ghosh and others is pending before the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), 1st Court, Howrah and the Ld. Court by its order dated 05.10.2010 was pleased to direct both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. Accordingly, the OP No.1 informed the same to the Complainant vide letter dated 22.11.2011, which was replied by the Complainants Advocate on 09.01.2012. Accordingly, the representative of the OP No.1, viz., Ma Kali Enterprise attended the premises of the Complainant on 03.02.2012 in order to effect the electric connection, but due to strong resistance on behalf of Uttam Ghosh and others, the electric connection could not be effected and the same was duly informed before the Panchla P.S. by the OP No.1. Thus, the prayer for dismissal of the case.

Further, the added OP No.4, namely, Uttam Ghoshs case is that the Complainant is not the co-owner and occupier of the stated property. Both Gokul Ghosh and Batakrishna Ghosh, who are dead, were the owners having half share each in the property. Said Gokul Ghosh left behind is wife Kanak, two sons, Uttam and Gautam and five daughters, Pratima, Bani, Rupa, Lalita, Jhuma and Rashmoni. Said Batakrishna Ghosh left behind seven sons, Joydeb, Tushar, Nabin, Dinabandhu, Mukunda, Srikanta, Biren and afterwards said Dinabandhu died leaving behind his wife Bandana, son Kartik and daughter Shampa. The Complainant is the son of Joydeb. The property is an undivided one. The legal heirs of said Gokul filed a partition suit before the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Howrah being T.S. No. 24/2011 against the legal heirs of the said Batakrishna, which is pending and an order of injunction in the form of status quo is still in force. But, the Complainant suppressing the said facts, has filed this case, which he has no right to do. Accordingly, prayer of dismissal of the case.

It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any anomaly and contradiction so as to make an interference therein in this appeal. Decision with reasons.

Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the complaint case cannot stand vitiated and liable to be quashed in limine on the ground of an alleged offence u/s 193, I.P.C. She has said that Uttam Ghosh being Proforma OP, has not been made a party in this appeal.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has submitted that it is bound by law and statute to function as such and to make supply of electricity as per norms, rules and guidelines framed under the Electricity Act, 2003.

It is mandated by Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 that every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by an owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. The Complainants purported case against the OPs is based upon it. It does not augur well and wholesome to discard the case of the Complainant as a whole solely on a singular point of his mentioning of his fathers name as œLate? Joydeb Ghosh. No such allegation has been made by any of the opposing parties of the case that he did so wilfully and intentionally. The record of the complaint case goes to show that he filed along with the petition of complaint, amongst others, one certificate of the Pradhan, Jujersha Gram Panchayat, Block-Panchla, District-Howrah, dated 03.11.2011, for the purpose of taking electricity, wherein the genealogy of the Late Batakrishna Ghosh was given and that all such legal heirs of Late Batakrishna Ghosh live separately. The papers of the OPs do not reflect that the Complainant mentioned his father as dead to them. But, it perhaps began with the letter of the Advocate, Mr. Prabir Bag to the OPs dated 18.11.2011, wherein he was shown as son of Late Joydeb Ghosh. It is not at all proved by any materials on record that the same is not a typographical mistake, but was wilfully and intentionally done. It would have been better for the Ld. District Forum to decide the case on its merits, but not solely on the ground of the supposed suppression of material fact, inasmuch as no prosecution against him u/s 193 I.P.C. has been drawn up against the Complainant. The impugned order is a cryptic one, done in order sheet itself, without writing a full-fledged and well reasoned order. The right of the complainant to seek and claim electricity as occupier, if any, cannot and should be curtailed in this manner. It is a fit case for remanding the same for a fresh hearing of the complaint case in its entirety after giving due opportunity to the Complainant to make an amendment in this respect, if applied for. This order will not also go to prejudice the other party not named in this appeal being Uttam Ghosh.

In the result, the appeal succeeds.

Hence,

ORDERED

"That the appeal be and same is allowed on contest against the Respondents without cost. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. District Forum, Howrah for a fresh hearing as envisaged hereto-fore."

Let a copy of this order along with the L.C.R. be forwarded to the Ld. District Forum, Howrah forthwith.