IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Before:
The Hon’ble The Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam
and
The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
MAT/856/2023
IA NO: CAN/1/2023
SMT. PRITHA NANDY
VS
CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION AND ORS.
For the Appellant : Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi,
Ms. Kaberi Ghosh (Dey) ...advocates
For the CESC : Mr. Suman Ghosh ...advocate
For Respondent No.5. : Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty
…..advocate
For the Respondent
Nos.6 and 7 : Mr. Subir Sanyal,
Mr. Biswajib Ghosh s
…..advocate
Reserved on : 24.04.2024
Judgment on : 30.04.2024
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-
1. This intra court appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner and is
directed against an order dated April 19, 2023 passed by a learned Single
Judge in WPA No. 22328 of 2022. By the order impugned, the writ petition
was disposed of with the observation that there is no scope of interference
in the writ petition.
1 6
Page of
2. The appellant filed the writ petition praying for disconnection of the
electricity connection of the 7th respondent and for a direction to shift the
meter boxes to the pre existing meter room in the ground floor of the
premises in question.
3. It is the case of the appellant that the authorities of CESC Limited shifted
all the meter box from the pre-existing meter room to another place in the
premises being no. 99/A Bidhan Sarani under Police Station Shyampukur,
Kolkata-4 without obtaining her consent. The appellant claims to be the
joint owner of the aforesaid property along with her sister-in-law having
undivided half share in the said property. It is the further case of the
appellant that the private respondent do not have any right to obtain
supply of electricity in respect of the shop room.
4. Mr. Chaturvedi learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted
that the authorities of CESC Ltd. shifted the existing electricity meters
without serving any notice upon the appellant who is a co-owner of the
property and without obtaining her consent. He further submitted that the
electricity meters were initially installed in a room which was used as a
ea Cabin
tery under the name and style “Manmatha ” and the electricity
meter board position had been shifted to a different location. He invited the
attention of the court to the photographs of the present location of the
meter board position and submitted that the present meter board position
is causing inconvenience to the appellant.
5. Mr. Sanyal learned advocate appearing for the private respondent
submitted that there is no requirement under the Electricity Act 2003 to
serve any written notice upon the occupiers of the premises for the
purpose of altering the electric meter board position and in support of
such contention he placed reliance upon Section 163 of the Electricity Act
2003. He further submitted that by an agreement dated 01.01.2022 the
private respondent no. 6 was inducted as a tenant in a shop room by the
2 6
Page of
husband of the appellant herein and one Smt. Annapurna Nandy, i.e., the
5th respondent, who happens to be the sister-in-law of the appellant
herein. He further contended that as per the said agreement, the private
respondent was given liberty to install new electric meter in his own name
for the shop room.
6. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the CESC Limited submitted
that the licensee has shifted the meter board position from its original
location to the present location after compliance of the requisite formalities
in that regard. Pursuant to a direction of this Court, a bunch of documents
in support of such contention has been filed which taken on record.
7. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials
placed.
8. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether service of
notice upon the co-owner or taking his/her consent are mandatory
requirements for altering the meter board position.
9. In order to decide the said issue it will be beneficial to refer to Section 163
of the Electricity Act 2003 which is extracted hereinafter.
“163. Power for licensee to enter premises and to remove fittings or other
apparatus of licensee.- (1) A licensee or any person duly authorised by a
licence may, at any reasonable time, and on informing the occupier of his
intention, enter any premises to which electricity is, or has been, supplied
by him, of any premises or land, under, over, along, across, in or upon
which the electric supply- lines or other works have been lawfully placed
by him for the purpose of-
(a) Inspecting, testing, repairing or altering the electric supply-lines, meters,
fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of electricity belonging to the
licensee: or
(b) Ascertaining the amount of electricity supplied or the electrical quantity
contained in the supply; or
(c) removing where a supply of electricity is no longer required, or where
the licensee is authorised to take away and cut off such supply, any
3 6
Page of
electric supply-lines, meters, fittings, works or apparatus belonging to the
licensee.
(2) A licensee or any person authorised as aforesaid may also, in
pursuance of a special order in this behalf made by an Executive
Magistrate and after giving not less than twenty-four hours notice in
writing to the occupier,-
(a) enter any premises or land referred to in sub-section (1) for any of the
purposes mentioned therein;
(b) enter any premises to which electricity is to be supplied by him, for the
purpose of examining and testing the electric wires, fittings, works and
apparatus for the use of electricity belonging to the consumer.
(3)Where a consumer refuses to allow a licensee or any person authorised
as aforesaid to enter his premises or land in pursuance of the provisions of
sub-section (1) or, sub-section (2), when such licensee or person has so
entered, refuses to allow him to perform any act which he is authorised by
those sub-sections to perform, or fails to give reasonable facilities for such
entry or performance, the licensee may, after the expiry of twenty-four
hours from the service of a notice in writing on the consumer, cut off the
supply to the consumer for so long as such refusal or failure continues, but
for no longer.”
10. Section 163 of the 2003 Act deals with the power of the licensee to enter
any premises and to remove fittings or other apparatus of the licensee.
Section 163(1) states that a licensee or a person duly authorised by a
licensee may, at any reasonable time, and on informing the occupier of his
intention, enter any premises to which electricity has been supplied for the
purpose of inspecting, testing, repairing or altering the electricity supply
lines, meters, fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of electricity
belonging to the licensee. Section 163(1) does not provide for service of
notice upon the occupier for entering the premises for the purposes as
indicated therein. It only requires the occupier to be informed of the
intention of the licensee to enter any premises.
11. Subsection (3) of Section 163, however, mandates prior Service of notice in
writing to cut off supply of a consumer in case such consumer refuses to
allow the licensee to enter the premises to carry out the functions specified
under subsection (1) and (2) of Section 163. Subsection (3) does not stand
4 6
Page of
attracted to the case on hand as it has not been alleged that the licensee or
its authorised person was refused to enter into the premises.
12. To the mind of this Court, only information to the occupier of the intention
of the licensee to enter into the premises for carrying out the functions
under subsection (1) of Section 163 is sufficient and prior service of notice
upon the co-owner cannot be insisted upon.
13. The electricity supply lines, meters, fittings and other apparatus for the
supply of electricity belongs to the licensee. The licensee also has the
technical expertise to decide as to whether a particular portion of a
premises is suitable for the meter board position. The licensee is, therefore,
the best person to decide as to the suitability of the location of the meter
board position and also whether alteration of the meter board position is
necessary. Consent of the owner or any co-owner of the premises is not
necessary for altering the meter board position when the licensee forms an
opinion that it would be hazardous if the meters are retained in their
original position. This Court, therefore, holds that there is no requirement
of prior service of notice upon the co-owner or taking his/her consent
before altering the meter board position by the licensee. The issue is
accordingly answered in the negative and against the appellant.
14. In the case on hand, the shifting of the meter board position was done
pursuant to an application of the private respondent(s). The status of the
person applying for shifting/altering the meter board position qua the
premises where such supply has been installed is not material and it is
only the opinion of the licensee as to the suitability or otherwise of the
meter board position which is relevant.
15. The learned Single Judge noted the submission of the learned advocate of
the licensee that the location of the meter board in its previous position
was inside a eatery and there were adjacent gas burners. Such factual
position could not be controverted by the appellant before this Court.
5 6
Page of
16. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the shifting of the meters cannot
be vitiated merely because of the fact that the consent of one of the co-
owners was not taken. The learned Single Judge was also right in holding
that it is the incumbent duty of the CESC Ltd. to ensure that safety and
security from electrical hazards are maintained.
17. The tenancy agreement dated 01.01.2022 filed by the learned advocate for
the 6th and 7th respondent was taken on record. It is evident therefrom that
the respondent tenant was given liberty to take new electric meter in
respect of the shop room. The husband of the appellant herein is one of the
executants of such agreement. This Court, therefore, holds that the private
respondent was entitled to supply of electricity through a meter for the
shop room.
18. Mr. Chaturvedi would contend that a civil suit is pending and an order of
status quo is still subsisting. Neither the pendency of the civil suit nor the
order of status quo passed therein have any bearing on the issue involved
in this writ petition and the learned Single Judge rightly observed that the
rights and disputes between the private parties including the writ
petitioner and the private respondents as well as the allegation of
encroachment shall be decided in the civil suit.
19. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the impugned order. The instant appeal accordingly fails and the same
stands dismissed. The application stands disposed of. There shall be,
however, no order as to costs.
20. Urgent photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the parties
upon compliance of all formalities.
I agree.
(T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ.) (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)
6 6
Page of