28.07.2026 Item No.27 (DL) Court No.07 AJ. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION WPA 16186 of 2024 < Sangita Saha & Anr. -Vs- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors. Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Arnab Mukherjee, Mr. Souparno Pyne. …..for the petitioners. Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy, Mr. Debangana Dey. …..for the WBSEDCL. Ms. Arti Bhattacharyya. …..for the respondent Bank. Ms. Suparna Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Adv. …..for the respondent no.5. 1. This writ petition alleges arbitrary action on the part of the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities in not granting electricity supply to the petitioners’ residential premises despite application therefor having been made by the petitioners. 2. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the co-sharers in respect of the premises whereat the petitioners are seeking electricity supply. It is submitted that a suit for partition being C.S. 96 of 2020 has been filed before this Court by the petitioner. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also filed another suit being Title Suit No. 2 1082 of 1018 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Barasat, 24-Parganas (North) praying for decree of declaration and injunction. The said suit also relates to the same property whereat the petitioners have sought for electricity supply. 4. It is next submitted that in the said suit, the learned Trial Court has passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards nature, character and possession of the suit property. 5. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities did not effect electricity supply in favour of the petitioners despite application therefor, on the ground that there were some amounts lying unpaid in respect of electricity consumption by the erstwhile consumers at the said premises i.e. Standard Chartered Bank as well as the father-in-law of the petitioner no.1. 6. Dr. Saha Ray, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities submits that the dues in respect of the Standard Chartered Bank (erstwhile ANZ Grindlays Bank PLC) have been squared off by the said Bank and ‘no dues certificate’ to that effect has been issued to the said Bank. 7. It is further submitted that if the petitioners pay the dues in respect of the father-in-law of the 3 petitioner no.1 and complies with all necessary formalities then in that case electricity supply may be given to the petitioners in accordance with law. 8. Learned Advocate appearing for the Standard Chartered Bank submits that the said Bank had written to the respondent WBSEDCL Authority to adjust the outstanding sums with the security deposit held by the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities in respect of the supply effected in the name of Standard Chartered Bank at the said premises. 9. It is submitted that despite such letter having been written, no intimation has been given to the bank by the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities as to what happened to the security deposit. 10. It is further submitted that the bank is also unaware of the ‘no dues certificate’ which has stated to have been issued by the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities in favour of the bank. It is next submitted that the bank is entitled to claim any amount that may have remained in the hands of WBSEDCL upon the adjustment of the outstanding dues with the Bank’s security deposit. It is further submitted that the bank has in any case has left the premises way back in August, 2022, and there could be no reason for any further 4 bill to be mounted upon the bank after the Bank having left the said premises. 11. A copy of the ‘no dues certificate’ has been made over to the learned Advocate appearing for the Standard Chartered Bank today in Court. 12. Learned senior Advocate appearing for the private respondent no.5 submits that since there is an order of status quo operating in respect of the premises whereat the petitioners are seeking electricity supply, no direction can be issued to the respondent WBSEDCL Authority to effect supply in favour of the petitioners. 13. It is further submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the pendency of a probate suit being PLA 175 of 2022 which has been initiated in the year 2022 that is pending before this Court. It is submitted that the said proceeding has become a contentious cause and is being contested by the petitioners. It is further submitted that as per the petitioners’ own case, the petitioners have only 2/9th share in the property in question. It is next submitted that the petitioners are not residing at the property where electricity connection has been requested. 14. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material-in- record. 5 15. It is now well settled that an order of status quo as regards nature, character and possession of the property would not stand in the way of electricity supply being effected in favour of a person if such person is found to be in settled position of the property where electricity has been requested to be supplied. (See: 1. Sk Asgar vs. State of West Bengal reported at (2010) 4 CHN Cal 191, 2. Sk. Samsud Doha vs. WBSEDCL reported at (2012) 5 CHN (Cal) 772) 16. In such view of the matter, since the petitioners have requested for electricity supply and the petitioners are ready and willing to pay up the outstanding sum that remained unpaid in the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner no.1 therefore, if the petitioners make such payment and comply with all necessary/required formalities, the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities shall effect electricity supply in favour of the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of compliance with all necessary/requisite formalities in accordance with law. 17. 17. It is made clear that this order directing the respondent WBSEDCL Authority to effect supply in favour of the petitioners subject to compliance with the terms indicated hereinabove will not create any special equity or right in favour of the petitioners in the pending suits or otherwise. 6 18. It is further recorded that nothing in this order will prevent the respondent bank from taking such steps as are available to the bank for the purpose of claiming and/or enforcing any claim that it may have against the respondent WBSEDCL Authority in accordance with law. 19. With the aforesaid observations, WPA 16186 of 2024 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. 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.)