Signing you in

Justices Shampa Sarkar and Arjun Ray Mukherjee were hearing an appeal against an August 6 order seeking restoration of power supply after the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (CESC) disconnected it because water was percolating to the existing meter board, which the distributor said was a safety hazard.

“Electricity is an essential commodity. The right to live in a healthy and dignified manner has been guaranteed by our constitution. In modern times, living without electricity amounts to deprivation of a meaningful civilized living,” the court said on August 27.

The case also involved a wider dispute over the premises and the status of those occupying it. The landlords argued that the occupants had no right to remain there and that the premises were in a dilapidated condition. They also referred to proceedings initiated by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

According to the order, the CESC had disconnected the power supply because water was percolating to the existing meter board position. The company submitted that the disconnection was necessary to prevent an accident, including the possibility of fire or electrification.

The occupants approached the high court seeking restoration of the supply. On August 6, the single judge directed CESC to restore the connection if the petitioners applied in the requisite form. It was also directed to provide a quotation so the petitioners could deposit the applicable costs and charges within two working days.

After the deposit, CESC was directed to remove the existing service cable and associated installation from the meter board position, allowing the petitioners to repair the dilapidated meter board and wall. The work was to be completed within three days of the deposit.

The petitioners were then permitted to carry out the repairs after informing the municipal authorities. They were also allowed to create a separate meter board adjacent to the existing position on the outer wall, in consultation with CESC.

If CESC found that the repairs had been completed according to its requirements and that electricity could be supplied from the separate meter board, the supply was to be restored. By the time the matter reached the division bench, it was informed that CESC had already restored electricity to the petitioners and others who had approached it.

The landlords challenged the single judge’s order, arguing that it affected their rights and was contrary to an order passed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation under Section 412A of the 1980 Act. Their counsel said the KMC order was under challenge with appeals pending against the orders passed in those proceedings.

The landlords also argued that the writ petitioners and other occupants had no right to remain in the premises and avail of power supply. Given the dilapidated condition of the property and the municipal proceedings, they contended that continued electricity supply could lead the occupants to claim additional rights or equity.

They further argued that if the high court did not direct disconnection, it could amount to an acknowledgment of the occupants’ right to remain on the premises.

The counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the challenge to the KMC proceedings was still pending and the electricity matter was separate. The counsel appearing for the other respondents also submitted that electricity supply should not create any equity in favour of the occupants.

After hearing the contentions, the division bench declined to interfere with restoration of electricity. The judges made clear that its decision was limited to the issue of electricity supply to persons who were originally enjoying the supply or had subsequently come to occupy the premises.

“The status of these occupants is not decided in this proceeding,” the court said. It further clarified that restoration of electricity could “never create any right or equity” in favour of the occupants. The supply would remain subject to proceedings initiated by the KMC or proceedings pending before a civil court, as the case may be.