13.08.2026 Item No.12 (DL) Court No.7 AJ. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION W.P.A. 1990 of 2026 Rubia Khatun -Vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Bodhisattya Halder. …. for the petitioner. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee. …..for the WBSEDCL. Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey. ……for the respondent nos.8, 9 & 10. 1. The writ petitioner complains of arbitrary action on the part of respondent WBSEDCL Authorities in attempting to effect electricity supply in favour of the private respondent nos.8, 9 and 10 using the petitioner’s property. 2. An order dated December 30, 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Hooghly appears to be the genesis of this writ petition. 3. The said District Magistrate had initiated proceedings in terms of an earlier order dated June 17, 2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 27829 of 2024. The said writ petition had been instituted by the petitioner seeking an order restraining the 2 respondent WBSEDCL Authorities from effecting electricity supply in favour of the private respondent no.7 therein by erecting poles on the property owned by the petitioner. 4. On such writ petition, the order dated June 17, 2025 was passed directing the electricity licensee to approach the relevant District Magistrate and alongside directing the District Magistrate also to decide the dispute in terms of Rule 3(b) of the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006. 5. In terms of the said order, proceedings were initiated by the District Magistrate, Hooghly which were ultimately disposed by an order dated December 30, 2025 directing the WBSEDCL Authorities to draw electricity lines through the Panchayat road in order to provide electricity supply in favour of the private respondents herein. 6. In the said order, the District Magistrate recorded thus “during inspection the petitioner and her family members unanimously agreed to release 3 feet from her own land which is physically being used as a common passage for connecting to main road and this road or passage is being used by the local people uninterruptedly for a long period of time”. 3 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 8. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits, on instruction, that the petitioner and her family members never agreed to “release 3 ft from her own land” as recorded in the order impugned dated December 30, 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Hooghly. It is submitted that such concession was never given by the petitioner and as such, the District Magistrate ought not to have recorded the same. 9. It is further submitted that the respondent electricity authorities should draw electricity lines without utilizing the petitioner’s land. 10. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities submits that the Distract Magistrate recorded the submissions on the basis of an inspection report which was prepared upon a joint inspection being conducted by the Block Development Officer, Assistant Director, BL & LRO, Chanditala-I, D.E. and Station Manager, WBSEDCL and Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Chanditala Police Station in terms of the 4 order dated August 13, 2025 passed by the District Magistrate. 11. Mr. Mukherjee has also placed before this Court a report with two sketch maps appended thereto. The two sketch maps indicate the points where the pole which presently exists, has been erected, and also the points where the new poles are proposed to be erected for the purpose of effecting electricity supply in favour of the private respondents. 12. Mr. Banerjee, upon going through the said sketch maps appended through the report, submits, on instruction, that as is apparent from the sketch maps, the points for the existing poles and the proposed PCC poles indicated in the first sketch map and proposed PCC pole 1 and proposed PCC pole 2 indicated in the second sketch map are not on the property of the petitioner. It is submitted that if the erection of the poles is done in conformity with the sketch maps which indicate that the proposed poles are not going to be erected on the petitioner’s property, the petitioner would not have any objection. 13. Since the sketch maps clearly indicate that the proposed poles are not to be erected on the property of the petitioner but on the 5 Panchayat road, therefore, the petitioner in any case cannot have any objection. 14. Insofar as Mr. Banerjee’s submission as regards wrong recording in the order passed by the District Magistrate is concerned, Mr. Banerjee’s client i.e. the petitioner would have to approach the said District Magistrate only to get the same corrected, in accordance with law. 15. However, in view of the sketch maps which show that the proposed poles are not being erected on the property of the petitioner, nothing further remains to be ordered on this writ petition. 16. WPA 1990 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. 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.)