1 D/L 26 14.09.2026 Rohit,A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRITJURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 23004 of 2026 Subhasish Maity Versus CESC Limited & Ors. Mr. SouravGuchhait …for the Petitioner Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee …for the CESC 1. The petitioner complains of inaction on the part of the respondents CESC authorities in effecting electricity supply to the petitioner’s residential premises. 2. By the order dated September 1, 2026 direction was passed on the CESC authorities to conduct an inspection at the relevant premises and file inspection report. 3. In terms of the said order, an inspection report has been filed in Court today which reveals that the petitioner is living with his four brothers and has been found to be enjoying supply. The report reveals that the brothers have separated their household units but there is no physical demarcation in the house indicating that might indicate that each brother has a separate establishment. 4. It is CESC’s stand that granting a separate metered supply in favour of the petitioner would amount to splitting of load. 2 5. In terms of the Regulation 14 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Providing New Connections Regulations, 2013), if an application made by an intending consumer for supply of electricity is declined by the distribution licensee, on the ground of splitting of load and a dispute arises as regards the samethen such a dispute is to be settled by the relevant grievance redressal officer. The regulation provides that it would be the onus of the applicant to prove that the application for new connection is not for the purpose of splitting of load. 6. Since, there is a statutory forum available for the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance, the present writ petition is not entertained. The petitioner is left free to approach the relevant grievance redressal officer by making appropriate representation in terms of Rule 14 of the aforesaid 2013 Regulations. If such representation is made, the grievance redressal officer shall consider the same and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of making of such representation. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case and the objection raised by CESC authorities. 8. Accordingly, WPA 23004 of 2026 stands disposed of. 3 9. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)