15.09.2026 Sl. No.: 15 Court No.7 BM WPA 2054 of 2026 NITYA GOPAL KARMAKAR VS WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS. Mr. Abdul Hamid Molla Md. Abdul Halim Mr. Sahil Hamid Mr. Biswadeep Dey Md. Ijaz Ahmed Molla ... for the petitioner Mr. Debjit Mukherjee ... for the W.B.S.E.D.C.L 1. The petitioner seeks implementation of the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Officer, WBSEDCL. 2. The petitioner had made a representation before the Grievance Redressal Officer against inflated bill raised by the WBSEDCL authorities. 3. The Grievance Redressal Officer ultimately passed an order, which was communicated to the petitioner under the cover of a letter dated November 21, 2025 thereby directing the WBSEDCL to cancel all the bills raised in respect of the petitioner’s service connection for the consumption period February 4, 2024 to January 17, 2025. The petitioner was directed to make provisional payment of 50% of the outstanding dues within a month and to make payment of the regenerated bill upon receipt thereof within the time specified therefor in full. 2 4. The petitioner’s supply was disconnected since the petitioner did not make payment in terms of order passed by the Grievance Redressal Officer. 5. On January 8, 2026 a communication was made to the petitioner by the Deputy Engineer and Station Manager, Dainhat Customer Care Centre calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum equivalent to 50% of Rs.3,61,297/-. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid communication, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 7. Mr. Molla, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Engineer and Station Manager, has passed an order which is in defiance of the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Officer, inasmuch as the Grievance Redressal Officer has already cancelled all the bills for the consumption period February 4, 2024 to January 17, 2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already made payment of a sum of Rs.1,82,198/- as such only a sum of Rs.91,099/- was due and payable by the petitioner and not any amount equivalent to 50% of Rs.3,61,297/- as alleged by the respondent Station Manager. 8. Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Advocate appearing for the WBSEDCL authorities has filed a corrigendum statement of fact in respect of the present case and submitted that bills for the period December 31, 2024 to 3 March 28, 2024 have been excluded from the amount payable by the petitioner. 9. He invites the attention of this Court to the said statement and submits that the petitioner is now required to pay 50% of the total sum of Rs.3,00,180.31 (and not Rs.3,61,297/- as earlier indicated to the petitioner by the letter dated January 8, 2026 which has been impugned in the writ petition). 10. It is further submitted that the petitioner is labouring under misconception inasmuch as the amount of Rs.1,82,198/- that has been paid by the petitioner was so paid in respect of assessment done against the petitioner under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 since the petitioner was found indulging in unauthorised use of electricity by way of hooking. 11. It is submitted that as the said payment was made towards assessment done under Section 126 of the 2003 Act, therefore the same cannot be adjusted with the consumption dues arising due to regular use of electricity. 12. The letter dated January 8, 2026 indicates that the total sum of Rs. 3,72,595/- that was due and owing from the petitioner as on February 01, 2024 was demanded by way of a bill generated on March 14, 2024. Out of the said sum the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- only while the total outstanding was 4 Rs.3,72,595/-. The aforesaid bills for the aforesaid period i.e. till February 01, 2024 were not the subject matter of adjudication before the Grievance Redressal Officer. To wit, the Grievance Redressal Officer was only concerned with the bills for the period February 4, 2024 to January 17, 2025 while the aforesaid sum of Rs.3,72,695 pertains to outstanding as on February 1, 2024 which is a period prior period which fall for consideration before the Grievance Redressal Officer. 13. Furthermore, the petitioner has already been supplied the corrigendum statement whereby the demand raised by the Station Manager by the letter dated January 8, 2026 has been further reduced and the petitioner has been called upon to pay 50% of only Rs.3,00,180.31/- and not 50% of Rs. 3,61,297/-. 14. The order passed by the Grievance Redressal Officer has thus been clearly complied with by the Station Manager as the sum demanded is not in respect of the bills for the period February 04, 2024 to January 17, 2025. In fact a copy of the corrigendum statement of fact filed in Court on August 5, 2026 was handed over to Mr. Molla on August 24, 2026 and he has not been able to show any illegality therein. There is also substance in the submission of Mr. Mukherjee that the sum of Rs. 1,82,198/- paid by the petitioner in respect of unatuthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the 5 2003 Act cannot be adjusted with dues for authorised consumption of electricity. 15. In such view of the matter, no illegality or material irregularity is found in the manner in which the petitioner has been called upon to make payment. Accordingly, no order can be passed on the present writ petition. 16. WPA 2054 of 2026 is disposed of by leaving the petitioner free to comply with the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer in accordance with law. ( Om Narayan Rai, J. )