19.08.2026 Item No.22 (DL) Court No.7 AJ. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION W.P.A. 1355 of 2026 Smt. Tapasi Mitra -Vs- CESC Limited & Ors. Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Ms. Payel Mitra, Ms. Piali Santra. …. for the petitioner. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee. …..for the CESC Ltd. 1. Affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent CESC Authorities and the affidavit-in-reply thereto filed on behalf of the petitioner are taken on record. 2. This writ petition alleges arbitrary action on the part of the respondent CESC Authorities in not shifting the meter and other electrical installation affixed at the petitioner’s residential premises. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that electricity meter and other electrical installation has been affixed at the petitioner’s premises for supplying electricity to the private respondent nos. 6 to 9. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that repeated representations have been given to the respondent CESC Authorities but the CESC Authorities have not taken any step to remove or shift the same. 2 5. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the CESC Authorities submits that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents as regards the passage where the petitioner wants the meter and other electrical installation to be shifted and it is impossible for CESC Authorities to decide as to whether the meter and the other electrical installation which is there at the present place can be shifted to the place indicated by the petitioner to the place identified by the petitioner as a common passage. It is further submitted that the said meter and electrical installation have been there at the same place since 2004. It is further submitted and that the petitioner is not a consumer of the respondent electricity licensee. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the material-on-record, this Court is of the view that the issue involved in the present writ petition would entail a fact finding exercise which cannot be appropriately undertaken by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In cases where, issues as regards route or passage through which supply can be effected to a proposed consumer or carried to a consumer arise, Rule 3 of the Works of Licensee 3 Rules, 2006 provides for an appropriate authority to resolve such dispute. The District Magistrate of the relevant District having jurisdiction over the relevant area is one of such appropriate authority. 8. In such view of the matter, going by the nature of the dispute involved, this Court is of the opinion that the present matter should also be resolved by the District Magistrate concerned. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to make appropriate representation before the District Magistrate, South 24- Parganas who has jurisdiction over the area where the petitioner’s premises is situated, requesting for passing directions on the respondent licensee for shifting of the meter and the electrical installation to a place which may be found to be feasible upon appropriate inquiry being conducted by the District Magistrate. 10. The relevant District Magistrate shall be free to device such mechanism or procedure which the said authority deems appropriate for the purpose of conducting inspection and ascertaining the feasibility of shifting of the meter and the other electrical installation from the place where it is at present to a different location. 11. In all cases, the petitioner, the private respondents and the CESC Authorities would be 4 afforded an opportunity of hearing. If any inspection is conducted, the District Magistrate shall ensure that prior notice is served upon all the parties so that inspection can be conducted in presence of all parties. Copies of inspection report shall be supplied to all the parties and all parties should be given opportunity to take exception to the same. 12. The District Magistrate, shall upon considering all material-on-record dispose of the matter by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of making of the representation. 13. Such reasoned order shall be communicated to all parties within a week from passing thereof. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s claim for shifting and all points are left open to be decided by the District Magistrate. 15. With the aforesaid observations, WPA 1355 of 2026 stands disposed of. No costs. 16. 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.)