N.22Sl 151/CL 18.08.26 DL-22 Ct-07 (S.R.) WPA 454 of 2026 Bhishma Konai v. The WBSEDCL & Anr. Mr. Bidyut Kumar Halder Mr. Indranil Halder Ms. Neha Singh … for the Petitioner. Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley … for the WBSDCL. 1. The petitioner complains of arbitrary action on the part of the respondent WBSEDCL authorities in not effecting electricity supply to the petitioner’s submersible pump. 2. Mr. Halder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for electricity supply for the petitioner’s submersible pump but the electricity authorities have filed a report indicating that upon their techno commercial study an amount of Rs. 3,87,327 is expected to be expended and as such WBSEDCL can proceed only if the petitioner can bear the same. 3. It is submitted that such an indirect demand makes it nigh impossible for the petitioner to get electricity supply. It is next submitted that the amount indicated by the WBSEDCL authorities is so high that its demand from the petitioner would amount to an indirect refusal to effect electricity connection in favour of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Halder further submits that in view of the provisions of Regulation 4.4.6 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Licensees Relating to Consumer Services) Regulations, 2010 as amended by the First Amendment Regulations, 2013 thereof, no techno commercial feasibility study is required to be conducted at all in respect of agglomeration of habitation under a village/hamlet where the electrification is already completed or in urban areas. 5. Mr. Halder submits that going by the report filed by the WBSEDCL authorities, they consider a scheme to be viable only if the same involves expenditure to the tune of Rs.75,000/- per KVA per connection or less and in this case the expenditure exceeds the said sum, meaning thereby that the petitioner would never get electricity. 6. Mr. Koley, learned advocate appearing for the WBSEDCL authorities submits that the petitioner’s interpretation of Regulation 4.6.4 of the said Regulation is incorrect. 7. He invites the attention of this Court to the last limb of the said Regulation to contend that even if electrification is done in certain agglomeration or hamlet but electricity infrastructure is not 2 available in the middle of the field then in such cases, techno commercial feasibility study would be required to be conducted. 8. It is submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has sought for electricity connection in a field where there is no electricity infrastructure available and as such, techno commercial feasibility study had to be conducted by the WBSEDCL authorities, which indicated that an amount of Rs.3,87,327/- would be required to be expended. He submits that WBSEDCL cannot embark upon a project involving an expenditure of such sum when the financial guidelines applicable to it only permit taking up such schemes/projects that involve expenses to the tune of Rs. 75000/- per KVA per connection and not beyond. 9. Mr. Halder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in such case, the petitioner should be allowed to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer. 10. Mr. Koley submits that the Grievance Redressal Officer may not have jurisdiction to entertain such dispute. 11. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, prima facie, it appears to this Court that the contention of the WBSEDCL authorities has merit inasmuch as, if there is no 3 electricity infrastructure available in the field, whereat the petitioner seeks supply then in such case, it may not be techno commercially feasible for the WBSEDCL to carry an individual electricity connection from the relevant village to a particular field. Prima facie, if it does so in case of one consumer, it may have to do so for other similarly situated consumers as well which may result in unusual financial strain on the WBSEDCL. It could be feasible if several similarly circumstanced persons joined together and agreed to share the total costs. 12. Be that as it may, since the petitioner wishes to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer, the petitioner will have liberty to do so. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any final opinion either on the merit of the petitioner’s case or on the jurisdiction of the Grievance Redressal Officer to decide the present issue. 13. With the above observations WPA 454 of 2026 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible. (Om Narayan Rai, J.) 4