C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 06.08.26 D/L Sl-09 Ct. 07 (Samar) WPA 8139 of 2026 Paritosh Paik Vs. WBSEDCL & Ors. Mr. Anindya Sundar Das, Mr. Sudip Sarkar, Ms. Paramita Mondal, Ms. Suva Gayen, Mr. Suman Halder, Ms. R. Sultana, Ms. Susmita Das, ….for the petitioner. Dr. Madhusudhan Saha Roy, Mr. Debanjan Chatterjee, ….for the WBSEDCL. 1. This writ petition assails an order dated September 11, 2024 passed by the Assistant Engineer(E) and Station Manager, Kakdwip Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL whereby the petitioner’s claim for compensation for the death of the petitioner’s son due to electrocution has been turned down. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court an order dated June 25, 2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.A No. 4410 of 2024. The said writ petition had been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the non-consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for compensation on account of death of the petitioner’s son due to electrocution. 3. By the said order, the concerned authority of WBSEDCL had been directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and dispose of the same upon hearing the representative of Kakdwip 2 Customer Care Centre, South 24-Parganas as well as the petitioner. It is submitted that the Station Manager is the representative of Kakdwip Customer Care Centre and as such the same person could not have heard and decided the petitioner’s representation being an interested party. 4. Dr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appearing for the respondent WBSEDCL authorities submits that the accident took place in the year 2016 and the representation for compensation was made in the year 2023. It is further submitted that in any case since a direction had been passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court earlier, the matter can be heard by the Zonal Manager, Kolkata of WBSEDCL or any other authority higher than the Station Manager who may be deputed for such purpose by the said Zonal Manager. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 6. There is substance in the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the representative of the Kakdwip Customer Care Centre, 24-Parganas, who was supposed to be heard in terms of the order dated June 25, 2024 could not have himself assumed the role of adjudicator and decided the petitioner’s representation for compensation. 3 7. Accordingly, the order dated June 25, 2024 is set aside on that ground alone. The petitioner’s representation shall now be considered by the Zonal Manager, Kolkata or any other officer higher than the rank that of the Station Manager Kakdwip Customer Care Centre, South 24 Parganas as may be deputed by the Zonal Manager Kolkata. 8. The representation shall be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order, in terms of the order dated June 25, 2024 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.A. No. 4410 of 2024 within a period of two months from date. 9. The Zonal Manager or such other officer deputed by the Zonal Manager of aforesaid shall afford an opportunity of hearing of the petitioner as well as representative of Kakdwip Customer Care Centre. 10. Needless to mention that the decision making authority would not be influenced by the impugned order dated September 11, 2024 passed by the Station Manager. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case and all points are left open to be decided by the relevant authority in accordance with law. 11. With the above observation, WPA 8139 of 2026 stands disposed of. No Costs. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)