07.09.2026 Item No.54 (ML) Court No.7 AJ. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION W.P.A. 14457 of 2025 Ismatara Khatun -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Arun Shaw. …for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Ray. …for the WBSEDCL. Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, Mr. Debrup Choudhury. …. for the respondent no.6. 1. The petitioner complains of inaction on the part of the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities in effecting electricity supply in favour of the petitioner at the place where the petitioner is presently residing. 2. The petitioner is at her matrimonial home. The private respondent no.6 is the father- in-law of the petitioner and the private respondent no.7 is her husband. 3. The WBSEDCL Authorities have, in principle, no objection to effect electricity supply in favour of the petitioner provided the petitioner is in occupation of the relevant premises. However, the WBSEDCL Authorities have not been able to do so in view of the objection raised by the respondent no.6. 4. Mr. Shaw, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the WBSEDCL 2 Authorities are not justified in not effecting electricity supply in favour of the petitioner despite the petitioner being in occupation of the subject premises. 5. Mr. Ray, learned Advocate appearing for the WBSEDCL Authorities submits that the WBSEDCL Authorities could not effect supply in favour of the petitioner due to the objection that was raised by the respondent no.6. 6. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.6 submits that the respondent no.6 is the owner of the property and the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent no.6 is highly strained. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has illegally entered into the property upon breaking open the padlocks put thereon. 8. Mr. Chatterjee relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatrey Shivaji Mane –Vs- Lilabai Shivaji Mane & Ors. reported at 2018 (6) Mh.L.J. 681, in support of his contention that a senior citizen will be well entitled to take a decision as to which of his or her family member will be permitted to reside at the property owned by such senior citizen. 9. The present case is not one where any question of title or ownership in respect of a property has fallen for decision of this Court. 3 10. At present, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of the relevant property. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the respondent no.6 and the wife of the respondent no.7. The respondent no.7, in turn, is the son of the respondent no.6. The case appears to be one of a family feud. 11. In terms of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 an occupier of a premises will be well entitled to electricity supply at the premises if the distribution licensee finds such person to be entitled in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Act. 12. Insofar as the proposition, which has been sought to be bolstered by the private respondent placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatrey Shivaji Mane –Vs- Lilabai Shivaji Mane & Ors. (supra) is concerned, the same would not further the cause of the private respondent in this case inasmuch as, as already indicated hereinabove, the question as regards who would remain in possession and who has interest or title in respect of a property in question is not the subject matter of decision by this Court in the present proceeding. The petitioner is indubitably the daughter-in-law of the respondent no.6 and there is no order as at 4 present (at least none shown to this Court) passed by any competent forum thereby disentitling her from residing at her matrimonial home. 13. It is well settled that a person in settled possession will be entitled to electricity supply, even if the occupation of such person is illegal. 14. Accordingly, the WBSEDCL Authorities are directed to conduct a fresh inspection at the premises in question within two weeks from date. 15. If upon inspection, the petitioner is found to be in possession of the subject property and the petitioner complies with all requisite formalities including payment of the requisite charges, the WBSEDCL Authorities would effect electricity supply in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from the petitioner complying with all formalities and paying necessary charges as aforesaid. 16. It is clarified that effecting electricity supply in favour of the petitioner would neither create any special right or equity in favour of the petitioner nor prevent the respondent no.6 from taking such steps as may be available to the said respondent for seeking eviction of the petitioner from the property, in accordance with law. 17. With the above observations, WPA 14457 of 2025 stands disposed of. No costs. 5 18. 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.)