09.09.2026 Ct. no.7 M/L.19 Samarpita IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) WPA/6930/2026 AMAL KUMAR DUTTA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Mr. Amitabha Ghosh, Ms. Arpita Paul Biswas, Mr. Buddhadeb Chatterjee … for the Petitioner Mr. Supriya Ranjan Ghosh, Mr. Jayabrata Mukherjee ..for the Respondents Mr. Debjit Mukherjee .. for WBSEDCL 1. The petitioner complains of inaction on the part of the respondent WBSEDCL authorities in not effecting electricity supply in his favour. 2. The WBSEDCL authorities have filed a report which reveals that a pole has been erected by the WBSEDCL authorities for effecting electricity supply in favour of the petitioner, however, an objection has been raised by the private respondent in such regard. 3. A suit being Title Suit No. 18 of 2026 has also been instituted by the private respondent (as plaintiff) against the petitioner as well as the WBSEDCL authorities, wherein, an order of injunction has been passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court at Serampore restraining the WBSEDCL 2 authorities from “giving electric connection to the electric pole installed at the property of the plaintiff till 09.02.2026”. 4. It is submitted that the said injunction is still subsisting. 5. The petitioner invites the attention of this Court to the report filed on behalf of the WBSEDCL authorities and submits that the report would indicate that the pole through which the petitioner is seeking supply is not on the property of the private respondent and that the relevant Gram Panchayat has issued a letter stating that the pole through which the petitioner can be granted electricity supply has not been erected on the private respondent’s property. 6. The material before this Court reveals that the dispute is as regards the place whereat the pole is installed. While the letter issued by the Gram Panchayat, which has been referred to in the report of the WBSEDCL authorities, indicates that the pole has not been erected on the property of the private respondent, the private respondent contends that the pole is on the private respondent’s property. 7. It is not in dispute that, there is an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, at Serampore, Hooghly, in Title Suit No. 18 of 2026, whereby, WBSEDCL authorities have been restrained from giving electric connection to the 3 petitioner through the pole erected at the property of the private respondent. 8. In such view of the matter, it would not be proper for this Court exercising writ jurisdiction to order the WBSEDCL authorities to effect electricity supply in favour of the petitioner merely on the basis of a letter issued by the Gram Panchayat. 9. The question as to whether, the relevant pole is erected on the property of the private respondent or someone else is one of fact and it has become disputed in view of the diametrically opposite stands being taken by the Gram Panchayat and the private respondent. Such disputed question of fact cannot be answered in a summary proceeding by way of affidavit evidence. 10. Since all the parties in this proceeding are already before the Civil Court, it would be open to the petitioner to pray for appropriate relief before the Civil Court by bringing it to notice of the Civil Court that the pole in question is not on the land of the private respondent. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is not entertained. The petitioner is left free to approach the Civil Court which has passed the aforesaid order of injunction and seek appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. Needless to mention that this Court has not gone into the merits of the respective cases of the parties. 4 12. With the aforesaid observations WPA 6930 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. 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.)