1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/424/2026 Sanjit Mondal Vs The Assistant Engineer and Another Mr. N.A. Khan … for the petitioner Mr. S.C.Mishra … for the respondents September 1,2026 [SR] Item No.11 1. The permanent electricity connection sought for by the petitioner stood rejected with the remark – “Form F not enclosed”. 2. Admittedly the petitioner is not the recorded occupier of the plot of land where electricity connection has been sought for. 3. A civil suit is pending adjudication before the learned Civil Court over the subject plot of land. The petitioner is already enjoying the temporary connection over the said plot of land for a long period of time. 4. The order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in SAT/005/2014 in CAN/135/2014 ( SmtHaridasi Mondal and others vs. Shri Khokan Mondal) has been placed before this Court wherefrom it appears that the right of the writ petitioner to remain in possession of the land in question has been accepted by the Court. 2 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned rejection with a further direction for providing permanent electricity connection. 6. Learned advocate representing the Electricity Department submits that as per the JERC Regulation, the applicant is required to provide Form-F at the time of making application. It has also been submitted that as the petitioner is already enjoying the electricity, he ought to approach the CGRF for redressal of his grievance. 7. Submission of the respondent cannot be accepted by the Court. 8. Regulation 5.27 of the said Regulation clearly mentions that application formfor new connection must be accompanied with proof of applicant’s ownership or occupancy over the premises for which new connection is sought. As the petitioner has been found to be in occupation of the subject premises, rejection of the application filed by the petitioner on the ground of non-production of proof of ownership is absolutely bad and not sustainable in law 9. It is settled law that for the purpose of obtaining electricity, the land in question is not required to be recorded in the name of the applicant. As long as the applicant remains in actual physical possession of the plot where the electricity connection has been sought for, the authority would be legally bound to provide electricity connection to the applicant. 10. The Hon’ble Special Bench of this Court by judgment dated 11th February, 2011 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, 3 first of which is WP No.423 of 2010 ( Abhimanyu Mazumdar vs. The Superintending Engineer and another) specifically held that the encroacher would be entitled to enjoy electricity if he is in settled possession of the same as long as he is not dispossessed by due process of law. 11. In the case at hand, the fact that the petitioner is enjoying temporary connection over the subject plot of land for a long period of time suggests that the petitioner is in actual physical possession of the subject plot of land. 12. The recording of the land in one’s name is only for the purpose of payment of tax. Non-recording of the land in the name of the applicant cannot be a ground for not providing electricity connection to the applicant who is in actual physical possession of the same. In such case, Form-F would not be required to be provided by the petitioner. 13. As the rejection order of the petitioner’s application is impugned herein, accordingly it is held that the petition filed by the petitioner would be maintainable. The application for fresh electricity connection is no way connected with the temporary connection which the petitioner is enjoying.Temporary and permanent are completely two different connections.Till the application of the petitioner is allowed, he cannot be treated as consumer. 14. In view of the above, the rejection of the petitioner’s application stands set aside. 15. The Electricity Department is directed to reconsider the application strictly, in accordance with law and communicate 4 the fate of the application to the petitioner positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 16. The writ petition stands disposed of. 17. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Amrita Sinha, J. ) Later: 18. After the order is passed in open Court, learned advocate representing the Electricity Department prays for stay of operation of the subject order. 19. The prayer made by the respondents is considered and rejected. ( Amrita Sinha, J. )