JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) THE appellant in the MAT is aggrieved by a single Judge decision dated December 3, 2014 disposing of the first respondent's WP No.8749(W) of 2013.
(2.) THE decision dated December 3, 2014 is quoted below: "By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction on the respondent no.3 to consider his application for new electrical connection (domestic). The Distribution Company is ready and willing to effect supply, but for the physical obstruction caused by the private respondent at the time of inspection, supply could not be effected. Admittedly, no written objection has been filed. Section 43 of the 2003 Act mandates supply on request. As a request has been made and no written objection filed, the petitioner is entitled to supply of electrical connection. Accordingly, the respondent no.3 is directed to effect supply to the petitioner's premise within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to mention, that the connection be given to the petitioner only upon compliance of formalities. In spite of service, none appears on behalf of the private respondent. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. In view of the aforesaid, this application is disposed of. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priorities basis."
(3.) THE first respondent applied to West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, on December 26, 2011 for supply of electricity. He filed the WP dated March 2013 alleging that for resistance put up by the private respondents (including the appellant) in the WP the licensee could not give him the supply. By the impugned decision the single Judge directed the licensee to give him the supply on the grounds that there was no written objection to the application for supply. Mr Dutta appearing for the appellant has submitted as follows. Anticipating the first respondent's steps, the appellant and a few others submitted an objection dated August 26, 2009 to the licensee on August 28, 2009. Suppressing the objection, the licensee stated before the single Judge that the private respondents in the WP had not submitted any written objection to the application for supply. Besides, the WP was taken up for hearing without proper notice to the appellant.;