C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 15.07.26 D/L Sl-18 Ct.07 (Samar) WPA 16433 of 2026 Pijush Biswas Vs. CESC Limited & Ors. Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Saikat Banerjee, Mr. Abhisek Baran Das, Mr. Subho Mukherjee, … for the Petitioner. Mr. Subir Sanyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shaham Sanyal, … for the CESC Ltd. 1. This writ petition lays challenge to a letter dated May 20, 2026 issued by the District Engineer, Kolkata Central District, CESC Limited to the petitioner thereby intimating the petitioner that the petitioner’s application for electricity cannot be entertained inasmuch as an earlier application for supply of electricity at the same premises is still under process. 2. The petitioner claims to have purchased an office being unit no. 56D at premises no. 6, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata – 700001. 3. After having purchased the said office unit, the petitioner made an application for grant of electricity supply at the said unit. The respondent electricity authorities conducted an inspection in respect of the premises whereat such supply was sought. Thereafter, by a letter dated April 11, 2026, 2 the District Engineer Kolkata Central District, informed the petitioner that the place whereat the petitioner sought to take electricity connection could not be identified. 4. Upon such letter being issued, the petitioner realized that his initial application seeking electricity supply did not mention the correct unit number of the office unit where the petitioner needed supply. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner made a fresh application on May 19, 2026 indicating therein that the petitioner required supply at unit 56D of premises no. 6, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata – 700001. 6. Such application of the petitioner, has not been considered fit for the grant on the ground mentioned in the letter dated May 20, 2026 which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 7. Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent District Engineer could not have issued the impugned letter and abdicated his duty to consider the petitioner’s application for electricity supply on merits, by taking the specious plea that the petitioner’s earlier application is pending. 8. It is submitted that in any case, the petitioner’s first application did not contain the same unit number which has been specified in the second application and as such, it can not be said that both 3 applications carried request for supply of electricity to the same unit. 9. Mr. Sanyal, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent CESC Authorities submits that the premise whereat the petitioner has sought for electricity supply had been gutted by fire sometime in October 2025 and electricity supply to the entirety of the premises had to be disconnected for safety reasons. 10. It is submitted that it may not be possible for the respondent CESC Authorities to effect supply to the petitioner’s premises till such time that the risk factor involved is properly assessed and ascertained. 11. Mr. Sanyal, further refers to an order dated July 09, 2026 passed in IA No. GA/1/2026 in CS/ 32/ 2026 (Shiba Prasad Mukherjee and Ors. Vs. Chamria Properties Private Limited) and submits that the same premises is the subject matter of another litigation before this Court. In the said case a five member committee has been constituted by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court to hold a meeting and to “physically verify the chamber and or space occupied by each consumer recorded with CESC Limited and ascertain the actual load required by each such consumer and suggest a mechanism for alternation and or modification of the given electricity supply at the said premises by CESC Limited”. 4 12. It is submitted that the entire exercise indicated in the said order is to be completed by August 31, 2026. He further submits that till such time, the report is filed, CESC Authorities would not be in a possession to take a decision as regards grant of fresh electricity connection at the said premises. 13. Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, contradicts this submission and refers to the electricity bill annexed at Page 52 of the writ petition (as annexure P-6). He submits that the respondent CESC Authorities have effected fresh supply of electricity to unit 56A at same premises (i.e. 6, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata – 700001) in December 2025 – that is post the breaking out of fire. 14. It is submitted that the said bill is for the month of March, 2026. 15. It is further submitted by Mr. Kar, that in any case, the letter dated May 20, 2026 by which the petitioner has been put on notice that his subsequent application would stand automatically cancelled after a period of seven days does not indicate any of the reasons that have been put forth before this Court by way of arguments advanced on behalf of CESC Limited. 16. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material record. 5 17. It is true, that the letter dated May 20, 2026 does not indicate any of the reasons that have been placed before this Court by Mr. Sanyal. 18. It is well settled that any order whether administrative or quasi judicial can stand only on the strength of the reasons mentioned in the order itself and cannot be supplemented by external factual assertions made later. 19. Further, since the petitioner’s earlier application did not relate to unit 56D at premises no. 6, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata – 700001 therefore there could be no case of duplicacy of applications made by the petitioner. 20. The letter dated May 20, 2026 issued by the District Engineer Kolkata Central District, CESC Limited appears to have been ritually issued without proper application of mind. 21. The same is not justified and is accordingly set aside. 22. The said District Engineer is directed to consider the petitioner’s application dated May 19, 2026 for grant of electricity connection to unit no. 56D at premises no. 6, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata – 700001 in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has neither gone into the merits of the petitioner’s application nor into the eligibility or entitlement of the petitioner to get electricity supply at unit 56D no. 6, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata – 6 700001. The said District Engineer would be free to take appropriate reasoned decision in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The District Engineer shall communicate such reasoned order to the petitioner within a week from passing thereof. 23. With the above observations, WPA 16433 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)