11 15.06.2026 Ct. No.07 J.Das IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 29686 of 2025 Sibsankar Chakraborty & Anr. Vs WBSEDCL & Ors. Mr. Gobinda Chowdhury Ms. Ananya Neogi …For the Petitioner Dr. Madhusudan Saha Ray Mr. Debanjan Chatterjee …For the WBSEDCL 1. The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the refusal of the WBSEDCL in providing an electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner. It is an admitted position that there are private civil disputes by and between the petitioner and the private respondent. There is also a civil suit pending filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking a declaration and injunction restraining the private respondent landlord from inferring with the possession of the petitioner. 2. Briefly, the petitioner had been inducted as a licensee as far back as on 16 September 2021 which admittedly expired on 15 August 2022. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the private respondent that the petitioner has unlawfully and illegally continued to be in possession and is not even making payment of license fees. On account of 2 arrears license fees there is an aggregate sum of approximately Rs.4,73,000/- which has become due and payable by the petitioner. 4. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that they have paid all current license fees and there is nothing which is due and payable. The scope of the writ petition is limited inasmuch as the petitioner seeks an independent electricity connection. It is an indisputable fact that it is the private respondent landlord who had written to the WBSEDCL for disconnection of his electricity meter. In background, the WBSEDCL was compelled to disconnect the electricity connection of the petitioner. 5. In Abhimanyu Majumdar vs. Superintending Engineer 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 362 it has been held as follows: “We, therefore, hold that a person in settled possession of a property as illustrated in the case of Rame Gowda (supra), is free to apply for supply of electricity without the consent of the owner of the same and is entitled to get electricity and enjoy the same until he is evicted by due process of law. We have already pointed out that either in the Electricity Act, 2003 or in the Rules of 2006, there is no procedure prescribed for resolving the dispute as to the status of an occupier in the property over which the electricity is sought to be brought or over which any work is to be constructed by the licensee for giving connection of electricity to any person. To construe the word “lawful” appearing in the Rule as “having perfect legal title to possess” would lead to absurdity in implementing the object of the Act and the Rules. In that event, at every stage, the licensee would face problem in giving electricity whenever any dispute as to the title of a person to remain in possession would be raised by any other person claiming to be the owner having lawful title over the property in question and the licensee would be required to wait until such a dispute is resolved by a competent court in a protracted litigation.” 6. Be that as it may, in view of the limited scope of the writ petition, WPA 29868 of 2025 stands allowed. WBSEDCL is directed to provide an 3 electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner after the petitioner had complied with all formalities and paid necessary statutory fees. 7. It is made clear that this order will not create any equity in favour of the petitioner and the private respondent is at liberty to initiate all proceeding whether civil and criminal against the petitioner. The question of genuineness and veracity of the undated rent receipt relied on by the petitioner which is annexed to the Exception to the Report which had been filed by the private respondent is left open. Liberty is granted to the private respondent to initiate appropriate criminal action against the petitioner if so advised in accordance with law. (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)