C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 25.08.26 D/L Sl-04 Ct. 07 (Samar) WPA 21792 of 2026 Sri Kalipada Ghorai & Anr. Vs. The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. Mr. Bhagabat Chaudhuri, Ms. Mallika Manna,, ….for the petitioners. Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley, ….for the WBSEDCL. 1. Affidavit service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. The writ petitioners allege arbitrary action on the part of the respondent WBSEDCL authorities in not removing poles that had been erected on the petitioners’ property. 3. The petitioners had instituted Title Suit no. 257 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur praying inter alia for a decree of declaration of right title interest and possession in respect of the suit property and permanent injunction. A decree for mandatory injunction directing the respondent WBSEDCL authorities to remove the electric poles and transformer from the suit property was also prayed for. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest on March 25, 2014. 2 5. The said decree was carried in appeal by the respondent WBSEDCL authorities. The appeal being Title Appeal no. 90 of 2014 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court at Paschim Medinipur on September 16, 2017. 6. The first appellate decree was carried in second appeal before this Court by filing SAT 73 of 2018. The same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on September 14, 2023. 7. The decree which withstood challenge through the first and the second appellate stages had been put in execution much earlier. The Title Execution Case No. 38 of 2014 was ultimately dropped on contest on May 12, 2026. 8. The petitioner complains that although, eight poles had initially been installed compelling the petitioner to institute the aforesaid title suit, yet, in execution of the decree, only six poles and the transformer were removed and the remaining two poles along with wires still remain on the petitioners’ property. 9. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 10. Mr. Chaudhuri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that at the time of execution of the decree, it could not be brought to the notice of the learned Executing Court that out of eight poles only six poles had been removed and the other two 3 along with the wires were left out. 11. Mr. Koley, learned advocate appearing for the WBSEDCL authorities submits that such statement is not correct inasmuch as, the order of the learned Executing Court, would itself reveal that the execution case was dropped on contest. 12. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 13. The order dated May 12, 2026 passed by the learned Executing Court in Title Execution Case No. 38 of 2014 reads as follows: “It is observed by this Court that on 02.05.2026, no objection has been raised by the D.hr's through their Ld. Advocate on record before this Court during hearing rather, the Ld. Advocate for the D.hr's voluntarily in open Court submitted that the J.dr's have removed the electric poles and the transformer from the suit property and have also filed an affidavit in this regard, The Ld. Advocate for the J.dr's [WBSEDCL] also was present and moved the show cause filed on 02.05.2026 for the J.dr's. As no further writ was executed by this Court, and the J.dr's submitted the show cause stating the order of the Court has been complied/executed (as per para- 6 of the show cause 4 dt. 02.05.2026), so, direction was given upon the D.hr's to take step in support of the submission made through their Ld. Advocate on 02.05.2026. Any new cause of action stated by the D.hr's cannot be considered in the instant execution case. Hence, it is – ORDERED that the present execution case being no. T.Exn.- 38/2014 [case no. 02/2014] be and the same is dropped on contest with reference to the show cause filed by the J.dr's dt. 02.05.2026 on affidavit against which no objection has either been endorsed nor been raised by the D.hr's as per observations of this Court.” 14. A perusal of the aforesaid observations of the learned Executing Court would reveal that the said Court dropped the execution case on contest upon the decree holders submission that the judgment debtor had removed the electric poles and the transformer. The learned Executing Court has also observed that if any, new cause of action had arisen, the decree holders would have to take appropriate steps. 15. Having regard to the above, the assertion of Mr, Chaudhuri that two poles were not removed despite the decree and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Executing Court is difficult to 5 accept. 16. Be that as it may, since it is the petitioner’s assertion that two poles still remain on the petitioners’ land and the same appears to be a fresh cause of action, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the District Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur with an appropriate representation seeking removal of those poles which, allegedly have been erected on the petitioners’ property and/or have been left over the said property. 17. The District Magistrate which the appropriate authority under Rule 3 of the West Bengal Works of Licensee Rules, 2006 shall consider such representation of the petitioner, initiate appropriate proceedings, cause inspection to be conducted and take a decision in accordance with law. 18. Inspection required to be conducted for the purpose of reaching a conclusion should be conducted in presence of the petitioner and the respondent WBSEDCL authorities and the report of such inspection must be supplied to all the parties. All parties should be given opportunity to take exception to the same. 19. The District Magistrate concerned shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law upon giving all parties an opportunity of stating their respective cases. 6 20. The aforesaid exercise will be concluded by the District Magistrate within a period of six weeks from date of making of representation by the petitioner. 21. The District Magistrate shall dispose of the petitioners’ representation by a reasoned order which shall be communicated to all the parties within week of passing thereof. 22. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioners’ case and all points are left open to be decided by the District Magistrate strictly in accordance with law. 23. It is clarified that the District Magistrate shall also take into consideration whether any removed poles are still laying the petitioners land or not and if the poles are indeed lying on the petitioner’s property appropriate direction for removing thereof would be passed by the District Magistrate, in accordance with law after hearing the parties as aforesaid. 24. Accordingly, WPA 21792 of 2026 stands disposed of. No Costs. 25. 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.)