@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Amitava Roy, J.@mdashAs agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the issue involved, I propose to dispose of this
Civil Revision Petition at the admission stage.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12-3-2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Cachar,
Silchar in Misc Appeal No. 10/2002 affirming the order dated 9-7-2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2 in Misc Case No.
10/2002 rejecting the said petition. The petitioner''s husband Shri Paritosh Chandra Karmakar during his life time was the owner of the building
involved in the proceeding. After his death, the petitioner and her children being the legal heirs are the owners thereof. On receiving a notice dated
12-9-2000 from the Assam State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ""the Board"") asking the petitioner to submit test report, documents,
etc. for regularization of the load of electricity to the building, she complied therewith and requested the Board to take necessary steps for
regularizing the service connection. The petitioner also made payment of the penalty bills for unauthorised load as claimed by the Board. However,
no steps were taken by the Board for extension of the load and for regularization of the service connection to the petitioner''s building. Instead, the
Board issued three bills threatening disconnection if no payment was made. Situated thus, the petitioner eventually filed the aforementioned suit in
the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior division) No. 2, Silchar, She also filed two applications one praying for injunction restraining the Board from
disconnecting the electricity supply to the Building and the second for a mandatory injunction to direct the authorities of the Board to grant
exclusion of the sanctioned load to the building. The first application was registered as Misc Case No. 9/2002 and the application for mandatory
injunction as Misc case No. 10/2002. The learned Court below granted injunction in Misc Case No. 9/2002 against which the Board preferred an
appeal before the learned appellate Court below and the order of injunction having been modified, the petitioner approached this Court with CRP
No. 223/2002 and this Court by order dated 26-7-2002 suspended the order passed by the learned lower appellate Court and directed that the
petitioner be allowed to enjoy the electric connection subject to payment of the regular bills. Thereafter the learned trial Court by an order dated 7-
9-2002 rejected the application for mandatory injunction. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Misc. appeal No. 10/2002 before the learned
District Judge, Cachar. Silchar, wherein the impugned order has been passed.
3. Mr. Goswami while assailing the impugned order has argued that the considerations on which the same has been passed are irrelevant to the
issue and on that ground alone the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. According to him, the aspect of payment of electricity charges
which forms the subject matter of the petition for temporary injunction was not relevant for the purpose of deciding the application for mandatory
injunction for grant of extension of load to the petitioner''s building. The learned Court below, therefore, apparently erred in law and on facts in
passing the impugned order, he argued.
Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the Board has fairly submitted that without prejudice to the stand of the Board with regard to its claim to the
electric charges which is the subject matter of the injunction petition as well as of the CRP No. 223/2002 before this Court, there is no difficulty in
considering the request of the petitioner for extension of load in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply.
4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, I am of the view that the learned Court
below ought not to have imported the aspect of the petitioner''s liability of paying the electric charges for the building which is the subject matter of
injunction petition to decide the request for mandatory injunction registered as Misc Case No. 10/2002, Rejection of the application on the said
consideration in my view, therefore, cannot be sustained. However, without going into the merits of the claim and counter-claim of the parties I
consider it fit and proper for the present to dispose of this petition with the direction to the Board to take up for consideration the application dated
22-9-2000 filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Silcher electrical Sub-Division No. 2, Silchar, requesting extension of
load of electricity to her building and for regularization of the service connection thereto at the earliest in accordance with the terms and conditions
of supply. The concerned authority of the Board in considering the said application would also examine the necessary supporting documents filed
along with the said application and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month, herefrom. Needless to say that the petitioner
would extend all co-operation in the matter and would comply with alt the requirements of the terms and conditions of supply as may be required
of her. At this juncture, Mr. Goswami points out that the domestic connection No. 13-L-13/DL and the Commercial connection No. 13-L 12/CL
are still standing in the name of her father-in-law, late Narayan Karmakar and Kalinandan Karmakar, the erstwhile tenant, respectively and that it
may further be directed that the Board while considering her request for extension of load and regularization of service connection to the building
may not be influenced by the said fact. He points out that a request for change in the name of the consumer, i.e., from the names of late Narayan
Karmakar and Kalinandan Karmakar to her name is also pending before the Board and in fact the same had been made in her application for
extension of load.
5. In the above premises, I am of the view that it will be appropriate that the aforementioned authority of the Board while considering the request
of the petitioner for extension of load and regularization of service connection to the said building would also take care of that aspect of the matter
and would not decline her request on the ground that the connection presently is not in her name.
With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.
