- (1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated December 22, 2011 is seeking a mandamus commanding West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, to give him supply of electricity.
(2.) THE document at p.23 shows that the petitioner applied for supply on December 10, 2004, and that the licensee issued the requisite quotation on October 28, 2005. The document at p.24 shows that the petitioner paid the amount on November 16, 2005. By a letter dated January 9, 2006 at p.25 the licensee informed that for resistance put up by the private respondent it was unable to give supply. In 2010 the petitioner instituted a suit against the private respondent claiming right to use the pathway in question for ingress and egress. Until then he did not take any step in response to the letter of the licensee dated January 9, 2006 whereby he was also told that his failure to comply with the requirements mentioned therein would lead to automatic deletion of his name from the register concerned. The Civil Court passed an order dated March 30, 2011, the relevant part whereof is quoted below: "both the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the nature and character of the Kha schedule property as it is and the defendants are further directed not to create any obstruction over the A B C D strip mentioned in the Kha schedule of the plaint, which the plaintiff claiming as their pathway, till the disposal of this suit. Thus the petition of injunction is disposed of." After obtaining the order from the Civil Court, the petitioner has brought this WP alleging inaction on the part of the licensee. The question is whether, on the facts, it can be said that the licensee is guilty of inaction. By the letter dated January 9, 2006 the licensee clearly told the petitioner that his failure to comply with the requirements would lead to automatic deletion of his name from the licensee's register concerned. The petitioner filed the suit only in 2010 and the licensee is not a party to that.
(3.) I am unable to see how the petitioner can contend that his application for supply submitted as back as December 10, 2004 is still pending. If his failure to comply with the licensee's requirements mentioned in the letter dated January 9, 2006 entitled him to refund of the quotation amount he deposited, he was free to seek refund. He was also free to submit a fresh application seeking supply of electricity. I am, therefore, unable to accept the case that the licensee is guilty of inaction. Besides, the petitioner's right to use the pathway in question for taking supply of electricity to his premises was not to be decided by the licensee that possesses no power to decide the question. Nor do I find any reason to decide the question in exercise of power under art.226.;