Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is pending disposal before this Court from 2006. On March 12, 2015, this writ petition appeared under the heading old writ petitions and the petition was called on hearing Mr. Ashok Kumar Ganguly appeared for the writ petitioner but none appeared either for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 or the private respondent and the matter was adjourned till March 13, 2015. On March 13, 2015, once again none appeared for any of the respondents. However, Ms. Rita Mukherjee who normally represents CESC Limited was present in Court and she was requested to represent CESC Limited, the respondent No. 1 in this matter. On March 30, Mr. Utpal Bose, learned Senior Advocate appeared for CESC Limited (hereinafter stated as "CESC") and all its officers. However, none appeared for the private respondent.
(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of the building situate at Premises No. 91, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata. The grievance of the petitioner is that CESC has installed a meter at his premises for supplying electricity to the shop of the private respondent which is not part of his premises. Complaining the aforesaid grievance, in the year 2005, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. 17998(W) of 2005. By an order dated September 19, 2005 a learned Single Judge of this Court held that CESC did not follow a fair procedure while taking decision to give supply of electricity to the private respondent treating him as a tenant under the petitioner and directed CESC to give a reasoned decision after considering the cases of the parties. By the said order it was specifically directed that if it is found that supply could not be given to the private respondent, then necessary steps should be given for withdrawing supply and to remove the meter immediately after the decision is given.
(3.) IN terms of the said order dated September 19, 2005 passed by this Court the respondent No. 3, the Deputy Manager (Mains) of CESC held hearings in the matter which was attended by both the petitioner and the private respondent. The short point required to be decided by the respondent was whether the shop room of the private respondent is located within the building of the petitioner at Premises No. 91A, A.J.C. Bose Road or not.;