D/L15 14.09.2026 Bpg. WPA No.10956 of 2026 Mithun Paul Versus The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors. Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta Mr. Arindam Shit. …for the petitioner. Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyyay. …for the WBSEDCL. 1. This writ petition assails the action of the respondents/WBSEDCL Authorities in refusing to effect separate metered supply in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s application for a new service connection is in effect an application seeking splitting of load. 2. When the matter was taken up initially, a co- ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the WBSEDCL Authorities to conduct an inspection at the relevant premises and file a report. Such report has been filed indicating that the petitioner and the petitioner’s father are living jointly. 2 3. The petitioner has taken an exception to such report, wherein the petitioner has asserted that the petitioner is having a separate kitchen and separate living room. It is, however, a common case of both the parties that they use a common bathroom. 4. Keeping apart everything the pleadings made by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of the writ petition deserves notice: “Your petitioner states that, the petitioner is not having his personal electricity connection in the said property, the petitioner uses electricity connection jointly in the said property registered in the name of Adhir Paul, who is the father of the petitioner. Since three families uses single electricity, the charges upon electricity are gradually increasing and thereby the petitioner desired to have personal electricity connection and thereby want to install personal electricity meter in his own name.” 5. The aforequoted averments of the writ petition clearly reveal that the petitioner had made the application for the purpose of enjoying the lower slab of electricity charges and the application was not based on the fact that the petitioner is residing in a separate mess having separate establishment. 6. Mr. Chattopadhyay demonstrates from the jurat portion of the writ petition that the affidavit in support of the writ petition has been affirmed by 3 the father of the writ petitioner. The averments made in the writ petition seen in the light of the fact that the father of the petitioner has affirmed the affidavit (and not the petitioner) also suggests that both are residing together and the application for separate metered supply was actuated by the intent to split the load. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, this writ petition cannot be entertained. 8. However, in case, the petitioner is able to satisfy the WBSEDCL Authorities in future that the petitioner is enjoying a separate establishment altogether, the petitioner may seek appropriate relief, but in the facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the writ petitioner. 9. WPA 10956 of 2026 stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)