16.09.2026 Sl. No.: 9 Court No.7 BM WPA 24436 of 2026 MOUSAMJIT SARKAR VS CESC LIMITED AND ORS Mr. Sourav Mondal Mr. Arijit Bhuinya Mr. Rony Mondal ... for the petitioner Mr. Shoham Sanyal ... for the CESC Ltd. 1. The writ petition complains of arbitrary action on the part of the CESC authority in disconnecting the petitioner’s supply despite the petitioner having represented against inflated bills before the relevant Regional Grievance Redressal Officer (RGRO). 2. Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been receiving highly inflated bills in respect of supply of electricity to the petitioner and as such, the petitioner made a representation before the RGRO on July 2, 2026. 3. It is submitted that while the petitioner’s representation against the inflated bills still remains pending before the RGRO, the CESC authorities proceeded to disconnect the electricity supply of the petitioner. 4. It is next submitted that the CESC authorities could not have disconnected the petitioner’s electricity supply without following procedure prescribed in Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2 5. Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent CESC authorities submits that no order should be passed on the present writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner’s conduct is deplorable. It is submitted that due notice of disconnection had been given to the petitioner in terms of Section 56 of the 2003 Act. He invites the attention of this Court to the bills for the month of June, 2026 and July, 2026 and submits that notice of disconnection was embedded in the said bills. 6. It is further submitted that although the representation made before the RGRO would reveal that the petitioner raised dispute only with regard bill for the month of May 2006, yet the petitioner went on merrily enjoying electricity for the months of June, 2026 and July, 2026 without making any payment in respect of the said months also while the consumption bills for the said months were not disputed before the RGRO. 7. It is next submitted that the petitioner has raised a dispute as regards the months subsequent to the month of May 2026 for the first time by way of the present writ petition. 8. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 9. Insofar as the contention of the writ petitioner that disconnection of the petitioner’s electricity supply was done without issuing any notice in terms of Section 56 of the 2003 Act, is concerned, the same lacks basis. 3 The bill in the month of June 2026 has appended with it a notice of disconnection indicating that failure to make payment of the outstanding dues in respect of the month of May 2026 would lead to disconnection in terms of Section 56 of the 2003 Act. Similarly, the second notice of disconnection was given to the petitioner along with bill for the month of July 2026. 10. Section 56(1) of the 2003 Act provides for disconnection upon issuance of notice of 15 days. Since, it is not in dispute that the electricity supply of the petitioner was disconnected on August 27, 2026, therefore, it is crystal clear that the statutory mandate of 15 days notice of disconnection in terms of Section 56 of 2003 Act stood fulfilled with the expiry of 15 days from even the subsequent notice issued with the bill for the month of July 2026, leave apart the bill for the month of June 2026. 11. The subsequent notice was in any event, an additional notice and the disconnection has been done way beyond a period of 15 days from even the second notice. 12. Further, there is substance in the submissions of Mr. Sanyal that the petitioner’s conduct is not above board. Indeed the petitioner’s representation at page 16 of the writ petition indicates that the bill for the month of May 2026 only has been disputed. 13. It is noticed that the representation has been made successively on July 2, 2026 and July 10, 2026. 4 The petitioner was therefore well aware of the bill at least for the month of June 2026 when the aforesaid two representations were made before the RGRO. Evidently, the two representations are silent on the alleged inflation in the bills subsequent to the month of May 2026. 14. In such view of the matter, no order for reconnection as prayed for by the writ petitioner can be passed on this writ petition. 15. Since, the petitioner already approached the RGRO, the petitioner would be free to raise further grievance, if any, as regards the other or subsequent bills before the said authority. 16. In case, the petitioner seeks reconnection the petitioner would be entitled to make a request therefor before the RGRO who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 17. Since the petitioner’s representation has been pending before the RGRO since July 2, 2026, the RGRO is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from date. 18. With the aforesaid observation WPA 24436 stands disposed of. No costs. ( Om Narayan Rai, J. )