@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.@mdashThe petitioner alleges inaction on the part of CESC saying that it has not given independent supply of electricity to him, though as a tenant of the premises concerned he has a legal right to get such supply.
2. In the opposition filed by the third respondent (the landlord of the petitioner) it has been stated that after entering into the premises in the year 1988, till the year 2004, when the application seeking independent supply of electricity was made, the petitioner did not consume any electricity through the existing supply line of the premises. There is no dispute that a high-tension supply line, given to the premises by CESC, was, and still is, in existence.
3. Counsel for CESC submits that there are about two hundred establishments carrying on their activities from the premises. He says that the transformer through which the high-tension supply was given is owned by the third respondent, which was, and still is, lawfully giving supply of electricity to the tenants and occupiers of the premises through separate sub-meters. There is also no dispute that the petitioner, if he so wanted, could have consumed electricity from the existing supply line and though a separate sub-meter showing only his consumption.
4. There is no reason to say that the petitioner ever attempted to consume electricity through the existing supply line. In course of hearing his Counsel has, however, said that the third respondent was creating lots of trouble regarding consumption of electricity by him. He has further said that the third respondent was charging exorbitant costs for consumption of electricity by the petitioner. I just wonder on what basis all these things have been said. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement on oath made by the third respondent in the opposition that from 1988 (when the petitioner entered into the premises) no electricity was ever consumed by the petitioner.
5. It seems to me that with certain ill motives the petitioner wanted to get an independent supply of electricity. Counsel for the third respondent has said that the petitioner wanted to give the shop room concerned to a third party. However, these things are no to be adjudicated and determined in the present proceedings.
6. Counsel for the petitioner contends that whatever may be the position, in the capacity of an existing tenant of the premises the petitioner is entitled to get independent supply of electricity from CESC. He refers me to the Electricity Act, 2003, Section 43, and also to a Single Bench decision of this Court reported at 2003 (4) CHN 541, and argues that even if there is existing supply, the petitioner has a legal right to ask for independent and separate supply.
7. I am unable to agree with him. The interpretation of provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as sought to be given by Counsel for the petitioner, if accepted, then in my view, an absurd situation will arise. Section 43, in my reading and understanding, provides for supply of electricity to an occupier of the premises, when such occupier is not in a position to enjoy electricity. The occupier who is already in a position to enjoy electricity supplied to the premises is not entitled to seek enforcement of the obligation of the licensee, simply because he wishes to get an independent supply. Duty cast upon the licensee must not get such an unreasonable interpretation.
8. Section 43 does not confer any absolute and unqualified right on an occupier of the premises to get supply of electricity. If such a right is visualized, then the interpretation is bound to lead to an unworkable situation. In the present case itself the interpretation may lead to similar demands by as many as two hundred establishments. Such demands if are to be met, then the resultant situation shall undoubtedly throw the whole existing supply system into disarray; and the landlord will be reduced to an absolutely insignificant person.
9. It cannot ignore that the petitioner entered into the premises with his eyes open. If he has disputes with his landlord, he is at liberty to get them settled through the appropriate forum. But, on the facts, there is no reason for the Writ Court, essentially a Court of equity, to grant him any relief. Needless to say that he is also at liberty to call upon the landlord to give supply of electricity to him.
10. I am told that an application for addition of party (GA No. 2789 of 2005) has been taken out by some persons claiming to be the owners of a part of the premises. Counsel for such parties says that his clients also want supply of electricity, and hence they have decided to support the case of the petitioner. In support of the prayer for addition, Counsel refers me to the Apex Court decision in
11. In my view, there is absolutely no reason to add the persons who have taken out the application for addition of party as respondents in the writ petition. They cannot be added as petitioners, since this is not a case instituted by the petitioner in representative capacity. It goes without saying that once the writ petition is dismissed, no relief can be given to any added respondents. If they want independent supply, nothing prevents them from approaching the licensee in accordance with law. Insofar as the present proceedings are concerned, they cannot be said to be necessary or proper party at all. Their presence is not necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the issue raised in the present writ petition.
12. For these reasons I am unable to give any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order for costs in it. The application for addition of party (GA No. 2789 of 2005) is also dismissed, without any order for costs. It is put on record that the application for addition of party has not appeared today and that by consent of Counsel for the parties it has been treated as on the day''s list.
13. I am told that matters appearing on the day''s list as item 27 and on the monthly list as items 54 and 55 involve identical questions of fact and law, and that they relate to the same issue raised by a few other tenants of the premises. Counsel for the parties submit that the judgment given in the present case may be directed to govern those cases also.
14. In view of the abovenoted submissions, I order that the writ petitions being item 27 of today''s list and items 54 and 55 of the monthly list shall also be governed by this judgment and order; and that they shall also be deemed to be dismissed, without any order for costs.
15. It is made clear that dismissal of GA No. 2789 of 2005 shall not prevent the persons who took out that application from approaching the authority concerned with the request for supply of electricity, and also from approaching appropriate forum or forums for ventilating their grievances in accordance with law.
16. All parties shall act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order and also on an urgent certified xerox copy thereof, both to be supplied on the usual undertaking.
