07.09.2026 Ct. no.7 M/L.37 Samarpita IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) WPA 10308 of 2025 Basudeb Mondal Vs. CESC Limited & Ors. Mr. Bidyut Kumar Halder, Mr.Indranil Halder, Ms.Neha singha … for the Petitioner Mr. Subir Sanyal, Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee ..for the CESC 1. This writ petition assails an order passed by the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas in a proceeding initiated in terms of an order dated September 6, 2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 16079 of 22023. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing WPA 16079 of 22023, seeking a direction upon the respondent distribution licensee to shift a transformer commissioned at the petitioner’s premises to some other place. 3. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated September 6, 2023, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned District 2 Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction with the grievance as iterated in the writ petition. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the District Magistrate, whereupon, the District Magistrate initiated a proceeding and passed an order dated February 24, 2025 thereby disposing of the petitioner's representation upon observing that shifting of the transformer from its current location was not necessary because no safety concern had been discovered during the joint inspection conducted by the authorities in presence of the petitioner. 5. By the said order, the petitioner was left free to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his rent-related grievances. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order. Hence the writ petition. 7. Mr. Haldar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a gynecologist by profession and the transformer is located at such a place in the premises that the petitioner is unable to make optimal use thereof. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner is agreeable to bear the charges of shifting of the said transformer and there is enough space on the road in front of the petitioner's premises whereat the transformer can be shifted. 3 9. Mr. Sanyal, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent WBSEDCL authorities submits that, the transformer has been installed at the said place in the year 1986. It is submitted that the petitioner purchased the property on December 6, 2004 as would be apparent from the order dated February 23, 2024 passed by the District Magistrate. 10. It is next submitted that the transformer has now become an integral part of the distribution/supply network of the respondent distribution licensee and abrupt removal thereof from the place where it is now installed to a different place is impracticable, unless a viable location is suggested by the petitioner. 11. He has taken this Court through the orders dated February 23, 2024 and February 24, 2025 passed by the said District Magistrate to demonstrate that joint inspections were conducted and both CESC as well as the Kolkata Municipal Corporation disagreed to shifting of the transformer at the place suggested by the petitioner since the same was not feasible. 12. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 13. In terms of Rule 3 of the Works of Licensee’s Rules, 2006 the electricity licensee, in order to carry out its works may place any plant or electric line on any land or any building upon the prior consent of the owner or occupier of such building. 4 14. It is not the writ petitioner's case that the transformer had been installed at the petitioner's premises without the consent of the owner thereof. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the property in question with the transformer installed thereat. 15. The proviso to Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 provides a mechanism for the appropriate authority, which includes the District Magistrate of the relevant district, to resolve a dispute as regards placement of any electrical line or plant on the property of a person without such person's consent. The present case does not fall under such category. 16. Once the petitioner's predecessor in interest had given consent and the electricity licensee has installed a transformer thereat, the successor in interest (which, in this case is the petitioner) may not be simply entitled to wish away the earlier agreement. Such agreement can be avoided either in terms thereof or by taking recourse to appropriate provisions of law governing the field. 17. The orders dated February 23, 2024 and February 24, 2025, read together, indicate that the District Magistrate has applied its mind to the matter and has reached a reasoned conclusion which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or perverse. 5 18. The petitioner has approached this court in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The scope of judicial review is very limited. In exercise thereof, the Court only tests or examines the decision-making process and not the decision itself. In the case at hand, no arbitrariness or perversity has been demonstrated by the petitioner as regards the decision-making process adopted by the District Magistrate. The petitioner has been heard and the order is well reasoned. All material on record have been duly considered by the District Magistrate. 19. In such view of the matter, the challenge thrown to the orders passed by the District Magistrate cannot be sustained. 20. It is also noticed that the District Magistrate has left the petitioner free to approach the appropriate forum for the petitioner's rent-related grievances. 21. The petitioner shall, however, be free to approach the appropriate forum seeking eviction of the electricity licensee in accordance with law, if such avenue is available to the petitioner. 22. Accordingly, WPA 10308 of 2025 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. < (Om Narayan Rai, J.)