Allowed

C. Jagatheesan v. the Assistant Engineer

Calcutta HC30 Jun 2022WPA/158/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order held that a settled possessor, even an encroader, is entitled to electricity connection upon compliance with formalities. The Court directed the respondent to supply electricity, clarified no title passes to the petitioner in the premises, and allowed the authorities to seek eviction later.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent authorities to ensure electricity supply to the subject premises after the petitioner complies with all statutory formalities and pays prescribed fees.

C. Jagatheesan Vs the Assistant Engineer — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

…

¶3

WPA/158/2022

¶4

C. Jagatheesan … Petitioner

¶5

Vs. The Assistant Engineer …Respondent

¶6

Mr. Veedur Narayan … for the petitioner Mr. KMB Jayapal … for the respondent

¶7

June 30, 2022 [SR] Item No.17

¶8

The petitioner assails the rejection of an application for electricity connection to the residential premises of the petitioner. It is alleged that despite the petitioner having applied for an electricity connection and willing to comply with all necessary statutory formalities, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily and whimsically rejected the prayer for electricity connection.

¶9

On behalf of the respondent authorities, it is alleged that the refusal for the electricity connection is primarily on the ground that the petitioner is an encroacher of the subject premises.

¶10

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that it is now well settled that an electricity connection (subject to the petitioner complying with all necessary statutory formalities) is an essential service.

¶11

In Abhimanyu Majumdar vs. Superintending Engineer and Others reported in 2011(2) CHN 769, the Full Bench has held that “so long as a trespasser is in settled possession and is not evicted, he should be entitled to get electricity on compliance with all the terms of supply as provided under law”.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid decision, the respondent authorities are directed to ensure electricity supply to the subject premises of the petitioner, after the petitioner has complied with all statutory formalities and paid the prescribed fees.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, WPA/158/2022 stands disposed of.

¶14

Mr. KMB Jayapal appears on behalf of the respondent Authority. His services be regularized by the Appropriate Authority

¶15

It is made clear that this order shall not confer any right, title or interest in respect of the subject premises on the petitioner or their successor in interest or any party claiming through the petitioner in respect of the subject premises and the Appropriate Authorities are at liberty to take appropriate steps for eviction of the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶16

( Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)

C. Jagatheesan v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Jagatheesan v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Chadda Vs the Sub Registrar (Campbell Bay) and Ors.

C. Armugam Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

M. Mutharanam @ Muthuranam Vs M. Ramamoorthy

Vikas Kishen Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Anr.

M/S Hotel Dream Palace and Ors. Vs the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and Ors.

Reba Rani Sarkar Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.