Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30799 (CAL)

SANJAY KUNDU v. CESC LIMITED AND ORS

WPA/17955/2026 · 2026-07-28

Om Narayan Rai

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 28.07.26 D/L Sl-05 Ct.07 (Samar) WPA 17955 of 2026 Sanjay Kundu Vs. CESC Limited & Ors. Mr. Bidyut Kumar Halder, Mr. Indranil Halder, Ms. Neha Singh, …. for the petitioner. Mr. Suman Ghosh, Mr. Aayush Sharma, … for the CESC Limited. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging a letter dated May 16, 2026 issued by the respondent CESC authorities calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,82,689/- being the balance amount payable out of the finally assessessed sum of Rs. 9,65,377/. It is the petitioner’s case that as the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 5,82,688/- out of the total finally assessed sum of Rs. 9,65,377/-, therefore, the balance amount of Rs. 3,82,689/- now payable by the petitioner may be allowed to be paid in installments. 2. Mr. Halder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not seeking restoration of supply and, as such, CESC authorities may be directed to permit the petitioner to pay the said balance sum by way of instalments within one year upon adjustment of the petitioner’s security deposit. 3. Since the prayer made by the writ petitioner is 2 wholly in the region of settlement between the petitioner and CESC Limited and is not for enforcement of any legal right therefore it would not be proper for this Court to pass any mandatory direction in such regard. 4. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondent CESC authorities by making appropriate representation seeking payment of the said sum of Rs. 3,82, 689/- by way of instalments, upon adjustment of the petitioner’s security deposit. 5. If such representation is made, the respondent CESC authorities will consider such representation in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of two weeks from the date of making of such representation. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s claim for instalments and or entitlement for adjustment of the security deposit and all points are left open for decision by CESC authorities in accordance with law. 7. With the above observations, WPA 17955 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. 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.)