Debasish Kar Gupta, J.@mdashNone appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5 even after service of a copy of this writ application under her. Let the affidavit of service be kept on record. On the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner leave is granted to the petitioner to add the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited as party respondents to this proceeding. Since Mr. Samit Panja, learned counsel appears on behalf of the newly added respondents along with Mr. Mihir Kundu, learned counsel, the formality of serving a copy of the amended writ application upon the newly added respondents is dispensed with.
2. This writ application is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.
3. This writ application is filed by the petitioner on the ground of inaction on the part of the competent authority of the respondent No. 6 in giving new electricity connection (domestic) at the residence of the petitioner at 89-B, Pioneer Park. Nopara, Post Office and Police Station-Barasat, District-North-24 Parganas.
4. The back drop of this case is as under.
5. The petitioner submitted an application dated November 22, 2011 in a prescribed form in the office of the respondent No. 4 for giving new electricity connection at the above premises. The petitioner received a communication dated December 2, 2011 from the respondent No. 4 to the effect that due to an objection raised by the respondent No. 5 the aforesaid new electricity connection could not be given to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same on December 15, 2012. According to the petitioner, no further step was taken by the respondent authority in the matter. Hence, this writ application.
6. It is submitted by Mr. Chinmoy Pal, learned counsel appearing with Mr. Anirban Sen, on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner is a patient of acute heart disease. He is badly in need of electricity at this residence. Due to inaction on the part of the respondent authority he is deprived of the essential amenity of life.
7. Mr. Samit Panja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4, submits that apart from the objection raised by the respondent No. 5 in giving new electricity connection to the petitioner, there were outstanding bills from the month of August, 2011 in respect of the premises in question. According to Mr. Panja, it was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated January 18, 2012.
8. The attention of the Court is drawn towards the provisions of Clause 2.5 of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Procedures-A (2010) (hereinafter referred to as the said "WBSEDCL Procedure-A (2010)" to submit that in view of the above guideline the petitioner is under obligation either to clear the aforesaid dues or to raise an objection against the above claim.
9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and I have also considered the facts and circumstances of this case. In order to ascertain the full and complete text context of the communication dated January 18, 2012 the same is quoted below:-
Memo No. NPCCC/SC/1379
Dated: 18.01.2012
To
Monoj Kanti Dey
89A, Pioneer Park.
Barasat. 24-Pgs. (N)
Sub: Objection against effect of new service connection
Ref: Our office memo No. NPCCC/SC/1327 Dated 10.01.2012
Sir.
In connection of our previous office memo No. under reference this may also be added that from our record it has been revealed that a good amounts are lying as unpaid at the premises in question against existing S/C no having CON-NO. B10114, since AUG'' 2011.
As such before taking any action i.r.o. the said premises clearance of outstanding dues will be required. This is for your information please.
(P. Sengupta)
Senior Manager
Noapara CCC
10. In order to ascertain the procedure to be followed by the respondent authority in the light of provisions of Clause 2.5 of said ''WBSEDCL. Procedure-A (2000)") is quoted below:-
2.5 On receipt of application, the office will check from office record whether any outstanding dues (OSD) or theft case/unauthorised use related dues are pending against that premises or any other premises where service connection in his name exists/lying disconnected or not. If such amount lies pending against the premises or any other premises where service connection in his name exists/lying disconnected then the application for connection according to the SOP Regulation shall be considered only if all dues of the applicant in respect of that premises and/or any other service connection held in his name in the WBSEDCL''s area of operation have been cleared. Where there are arrears of charges outstanding for a premises, before the application is processed the application shall be liable for clearing the dues if nexus is established with erstwhile defaulting consumer and in such case the intending consumer shall be intimated of such dues within 10 days from the date of receipt of such application. However, if such dues are not cleared, where applicable, within one hundred (100) days from the date of intimating the intending consumer about such dues and the intending consumer has not contested such claim then the application in Annexure-A will be treated cancelled and the earnest money will be forfeited.
11. After considering the above communication dated January 18, 2012. I find neither the amount due and payable was mentioned in that letter nor any nexus of the petitioner with the erstwhile defaulting consumer was disclosed in the above communication. It may opinion, the above communication cannot be said to be issued in compliance of the provisions of Clause 2.5 of the WBSEDCL, Procedure-A (2000).
12. In order to establish any nexus of the petitioner with the erstwhile defaulting consumer of the premises in question the respondent authority is to cause a quasi-judicial enquiry in exercise of adjudicative power. The term ''quasi-judicial" denotes that proceeding in question is similar to a judicial proceeding and the person whose interests may be prejudicially effected by such proceeding must have natural justice. Therefore, while discharging a quasi judicial or adjudicative function, the respondent authority must act adhering to the principles of natural justice even in absence of any explicit indication in the said WBSEDCL, Procedure-A (2000).
13. In the context of the nature of quasi judicial enquiry involved in this case on the basis of facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove opportunity of hearing is considered indispensable to eliminate the risk of victimization of the petitioner by depriving him of enjoying essential amenity of life namely, electricity. Since notice is the sine quo of a fair hearing a valid and effective notice must be served upon the petitioner before giving him opportunity of hearing for the purpose of passing reasoned order in the matter of following settled principles of law. Reference may be made to the decision of
20. The aim of the rules of nature justice is to secure justice or to put in negatively to present miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the pas it was thought that it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a Judge in his own case (memo debt esse judex propria cause) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the Courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is now questioned. If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquires. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquires from quasi judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time any now being considered as quasi judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. As unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi judicial enquiry. As observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala & Ors. the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a Court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
14. So far as other aspects of the matter is concerned, since the respondent No. 5 has raised a written objection before the respondent authority a copy of the same must be send to the petitioner for dealing with the same. Since arriving at a decision with regard to that complain is a kind of adjudication, reasonable opportunity must be given to the objector and the petitioner for the purpose of complying with the rules of principles of natural justice.
15. In view of the discussions and observations made hereinabove the respondent No. 4 is directed to issue a notice to the petitioner within three days.
16. Leave is granted to the petitioner to give reply to the same within seven days thereof.
17. On receipt of the reply of the petitioner the respondent No. 4 is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner to give new electricity connection under reference to him by passing a reasoned order within a period of a week from the date of receipt of the communication from the petitioner, if any, as also after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other persons concerned.
18. Since no affidavit-in-opposition is filed on behalf of the respondent, the allegations made against them in this writ application are to be treated as denied by them.
19. This writ application is disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Let a plain photostat copy of the order duly counter signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the parties on the usual undertakings.
