Mr. Utpal Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order in discharge of his duties under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such this Court should not interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 3. I am, however, unable to accept such submission of Mr. Bose. While discharging functions as a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 the respondent no. 1 CESC and its officers are required to act bona fide and not to use a citizen's property for supplying electricity to an occupier of a different property or to any person occupying pavement of a public street. In the instant case, from the very beginning the petitioner raised objection to the installation of the meter at his premises for supplying electricity to the said shop of the private respondent, on the specific ground that the said shop room does not form part of his premises being premises no. 91 A.J.C. Bose Road. However, without disclosing any reason to the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 installed the said meter at the premises of the petitioner.
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Kartick Chandra Chandra vs C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Ors on 16 April, 2015
Citation; AIR 2015 (NOC)862 cal