Disposed

Rituparna Ghosh and Anr. v. Calcutta Electri Supply Corporation and Ors.

Calcutta HC25 Sept 2023WPO/1555/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ filed by Rituparna Ghosh for a new electricity connection rejected by CESC, the High Court at Calcutta noted a factual dispute regarding separate interest. The court dismissed the writ and granted liberty to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer to resolve the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the Writ Petition by granting liberty to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer.

Rituparna Ghosh and Anr. Vs Calcutta Electri Supply… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

OD-15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

WPO/1555/2023 RITUPARNA GHOSH & ANR. VERSUS

¶4

CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION & ORS.

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA

¶7

Date : 25^th September, 2023

¶8

Appearance :

¶9

Mr. Dhananjaya Nayak, Adv. Mr. Sourav Sardar, Adv. … for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Aniruddha Ganguly, Adv. … for the CESC

¶11

Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Adv. Mr. Debangshu Dinda, Adv. … for State

¶12

The Court : Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have fallen out of with the brothers of their predecessor-ininterest/father namely, Paritosh Ghosh. As such, the petitioners have sought for a new electricity connection which has been refused by the Distribution licensee on the ground that there might be splitting of load. It is submitted that since the petitioners’ interest is separate from the private respondents, the said ground of refusal is not tenable in the eye of law.

¶13

Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.

¶14

¶15

The appearance of Mr. Aniruddha Ganguly, learned advocate, be regularized by the CESC Limited, to represent the CESC Limited in this particular matter (along with his senior Mr. Debanjan Mukheree).

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that there is a factual dispute as to whether the petitioners really represent a different interest than the private respondents, who are enjoying electricity connection in the same premises. To resolve such issue of fact, it is appropriate that the competent authority under the law, that is, the concerned Grievance Redressal Officer, is required to resolve the dispute.

¶17

Accordingly, WPO 1555 of 2023 is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned Grievance Redressal Officer with the dispute as raised in the present writ petition. If so approached, the concerned Grievance Redressal Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and upon giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned, preferably within six weeks from the date of approach being made by the petitioners.

¶18

No orders as costs.

¶19

(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

¶20

SN. AR(CR)

Rituparna Ghosh and Anr. v. Calcutta Electri Supply Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rituparna Ghosh and Anr. v. Calcutta Electri Supply Corporation and Ors.

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

Khoka Barman Vs Din Mohan Barman and Anr.

Bimal Saha and Ors. Vs Dulal Chandra Singha

Sanjay Barman and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal

Alpha Stitch-Art Private Limited and Anr. Vs the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ashraf Ali Vs Calcutta Electric Supply Corp. Ltd. and Ors.