SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI,J.: - (1.) The petitioner has been enjoying industrial electric connection. Its factory once belonged to the respondent no. 3 from whom it had purchased it on July 8, 2005 upon payment of consideration.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that at the time of purchase of the said factory premises a meter was installed there in the name of the respondent no. 3 who intimated the petitioner that there was due in respect of the said connection. The petitioner applied for a separate industrial meter and the respondent no. 1 without raising any objection installed an industrial meter after receiving a sum of Rs. 1,26,649/ -.
(3.) The petitioner alleges that all of a sudden some personnel of the respondent no. 2 came to its factory and disconnected the supply standing in the name of the respondent no. 3. The authority is alleged to have verbally intimated that the said meter was earlier disconnected in the year 2002. The respondent no. 3 filed a writ petition before the High Court. Although there was an interim order of restoration of electric supply the writ petition was ultimately dismissed and the authority again disconnected the supply on the ground of non -payment of dues.;