30 09.04.2026 Ct. No.07 J.Das IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 6935 of 2026 Sakti Sau Vs. WBSEDCL and Ors. Mr. Syed Shahid Imam Mr. Mohammad Khairul …For the petitioner Mr. Srijan Nayak Mrs. Rituparna Maitra …For the WBSEDCL 1. The grievance of petitioner is directed against quashing and setting aside of a demand of Rs.24,32,218.98/- raised by the WBSEDCL. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no basis to the impugned demand and the same has been arbitrarily raised by the WBSEDCL. In fact upon the petitioner having claimed refund of the security deposit, the impugned demand has been slapped on the petitioner. 3. On behalf of the respondent WBSEDCL, it is submitted that there is a gross suppression and distortion of the true and correct facts of the case. The petitioner is a habitual defaulter and there are outstanding electricity arrears which are pending since 2004. It is also submitted on behalf of the WBSEDCL that in the garb of trying to promote 2 the premises the petitioner has filed this writ petition with ulterior purpose. 4. In view of the disputed question of facts which arise for consideration and the fact that there are huge outstanding arrears which are payable by the petitioner, there is no scope to entertain this writ petition. 5. There is no enforceable legal right which the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate warranting any reliefs. The petition is ill-motivated and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)