28.07.2026 Ct. No. 17 Sl. No. 20 RANJAN FMA 1085 of 2021 AMBY PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. VS. CESC LIMITED AND ORS. Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Siddharth Shroff …… For the appellants Mr. Subir Sanyal Mr. Somnath Bose Ms. Sumouli Sarkar ……For the CESC Limited 1. This appeal is against an order dated February 14, 2018 dismissing the writ petition. 2. The petitioners are the owners of premises no. 21 B, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-700 019 and are aggrieved by the refusal of the CESC Ltd in removing a transformer which has been installed at their premises. The transformer compromises on the safety and security of the inhabitants of the premises. There are also difficulties being faced in the ingress and egress of vehicles at the premises. In this background, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions on CESC Limited. 3. On behalf of the CESC Limited, it is submitted that the transformer had been installed as far 2 back as in 1981 long prior to the petitioner purchasing the premises. The petitioners were fully aware of the transformer at the time of purchase and are estopped from raising any grievance after such a considerable period of time. 4. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has dismissed the writ petition, after being satisfied with the Report filed by CESC Ltd. 5. The issues raised by the petitioners are neither justiciable nor can be gone into in a summary proceeding of this nature. There is no legally enforceable right which the petitioners can claim warranting exercising of any discretion in their favour. In any event, the impugned order categorically records that the petitioners had before the Trial Court restricted their submissions only to the extent that the oil type transformer be transferred to the dry type transformer. In this background, the CESC Limited was directed to file a Report. Upon been satisfied with the Report dated February 12, 2018 the Trial Court had dismissed the writ petition. 6. There is no infirmity in the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. The petitioner had full 3 notice and knowledge of the existence of the transformer at the time of purchase and construction of the building. The transformer has been operational for decades and the same cannot be re-located at the whims of the petitioners. All precautions and safety measures have been taken in the workings of the transformer. The transformer caters to a large population in an around the locality and in the absence of any credible evidence it is in the larger public interest that no relief be granted in favour of the appellants. 7. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. There is no perversity nor illegality nor contravention of any law which warrants interference, FMA 1085 of 2021 along with connected application being CAN 1 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 1970 of 2018) stands dismissed. 8. Nevertheless, in view of the nature of the grievance raised by the petitioners, CESC Limited is requested to consider the complaint of the petitioner. Both parties are requested to co-operate in resolution of their disputes, if possible. 4 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment/order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities. [RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.] [CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]