23.07.2026 Item No.31 (DL) Court No.7 AJ. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION W.P.A. 13694 of 2026 Suman Kalyan Maity -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Amit Baran Dash. …for the petitioners. Mr. Amitabha Shukla. …for the WBSEDCL. Mr. Masud Mallik. for the respondent no.6. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. This writ petition alleges arbitrariness on the part of the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities in shifting the electricity pole (wherefrom the petitioner is receiving supply) to a different place than the place where it was earlier erected. 3. The petitioner alleges that initially the pole was erected on a common passage. However, on an application made by the respondent no.6, the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities have shifted the pole from the common passage to the property owned by the respondent no.6. 4. Mr. Dash, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had incurred expenses in excess of 2 Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of getting electricity supply upon installation of the said pole. However, the pole has been shifted from the place whereat it was initially installed to a different place without the petitioner’s consent. 5. It is submitted that in case there is any disruption of supply to the petitioner’s premises either at the behest of the private respondent or for any reason, the petitioner would have to remain without electricity because the petitioner would not be able to provide access to the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities to the pole since the pole being on a private property of respondent no. 6 will not be under control of the petitioner. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that the pole was never installed on a common passage. It is further submitted that actually the pole was earlier installed on the private respondent no.6’s property and it has been presently shifted to a common passage. 7. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities also submits that the present place whereat the pole has been installed is a common passage. 3 8. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 9. Since the petitioner has already paid the charges for getting electricity connection whereupon, the pole was installed and supply was effected in favour of the petitioner at the petitioner’s commercial premises, therefore, till such time the petitioner goes on paying the current consumption charges and/or there is no unauthorized abstraction of electricity by the petitioner and/or there is no technical fault, there should be no reason for the petitioner to apprehend that the petitioner’s electricity connection would be disrupted. 10. As to whether the property whereat the pole is installed presently or whereat the pole was installed earlier is a common passage or a private property of any of the parties to the present writ petition cannot be decided by this Court in writ jurisdiction. 11. This Court has been informed Mr. Dash as well as by the learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent no.6 that two civil suits are pending between the petitioner and the private respondent as well as the other co- owners, one of which is for partition (and it has been filed by the petitioner). The dispute 4 as regards property would best be resolved in the Civil Court. 12. Furthermore, it is the case of the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities as well as the respondent no.6, as submitted in Court today, that the pole has been installed at a common passage. If such be the case, the respondent no. 6 and the WBSEDCL Authorities would ensure that access is had to the pole in case of any requirement to correct any technical fault or remove any interruption in electricity supply to the petitioner. 13. In any case, if the petitioner finds that the petitioner’s electricity supply is being unjustly interrupted, the petitioner will always be free to approach the appropriate authorities in accordance with law. 14. With the above observations, WPA 13694 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. 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.)