Allowed

Chandraiah v. the Superintending Engineer

Calcutta HC20 Sept 2021WPA/233/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Calcutta held that under the Electricity Act, 2003, an occupant of land is entitled to electricity supply. The authorities were directed to process the petitioner's application within one month, subject to payment of fees and charges. The order was disposed of at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to process the petitioner's application for electricity supply within one month of the order communication, subject to deposit of requisite fees and charges.

Chandraiah Vs the Superintending Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

¶2

¶3

WPA/233/2021

¶4

Chandraiah Vs. The Superintending Engineer and others

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

Mrs.C.Kala Devi, Mrs.Gloriya Mary, Advocates … for the petitioner Mr.Arul Prasanth, Advocate … for the respondents

¶8

September 20, 2021 [GNC]

¶9

Item No.23

¶10

The present writ petition is filed by the occupant of survey plot No. 330 measuring an area of 200 square meters situated at Cylone Basti, Little Andaman, South Andaman district seeking an order upon the respondent authorities to provide electricity connection thereat. It is contended that the petitioner is occupying the premises and enjoying the same by constructing dwelling house uninterruptedly for a pretty long time and the authorities have unreasonably withheld the application for supply of electricity.

¶11

Mr.Prasanth appearing for the Administration raises an objection to the prayer made in the said writ petition. According to him, the petitioner is forcibly occupying the land and therefore, not entitled to electricity. It is further submitted that the said land is covered under the forest area and not a revenue

¶12

¶13

land and therefore, an affidavit is required to be filed in terms of the order of the Superintending Engineer.

¶14

After promulgation of the Electricity Act, 2003 it is duty of the Distributor or the Licensee to supply electricity on request made through an application to the owner or occupier of any premises. There is no classification of the ‘occupier’ under the said Act, more particularly, that a person who is in lawful possession of the land is only entitled to supply of electricity. The Act does not envisage such situation as to when the occupier is entitled to have the supply of electricity. The authority cannot put any fetter by imposition of any conditions. The occupation is paramount and once proved the authorities cannot take shelter that such occupation is wrongful and/or illegal.

¶15

Till date the petitioner is in occupation and in the paragraph 3 of the writ petition has also indicated the survey plot number where the supply is to be effected and therefore, the contention of the respondents cannot be entertained.

¶16

In view of the mandate given under section 43 of the Act the authorities cannot withhold the supply of electricity nor can deny such supply to an occupant of the plot of the land.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to process the application filed by the

¶18

¶19

petitioner in extending the supply of electricity to the survey plot number as indicated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition within one month from the date of communication of this order subject to the fulfillment of the other conditions namely the deposit of the requisite fees and the charges required therefor.

¶20

Since the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself the allegations made therein shall not be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents.

¶21

( Harish Tandon, J. )

Chandraiah v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandraiah v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepika Kishan @ Deepika Kishen Vs U. T. of Andaman and Ors.

Namita Mistry and Another Vs Paritosh Mistry and Others

M/S Abs Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Lieutenant Governor and Anr.

P.Venkateshwar Rao Vs Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Anr.

Prem Sundari Bai Vs the Superintending Engineer and Others

Shankar Paik Vs the Superintending Engineer