- (1.) THERE is a passionate dispute between the writ petitioner and the private respondent No. 6 in the matter of the writ petitioner's entitlement to the business premises whereat the petitioner has sought an electricity connection. The private respondent says that the petitioner has no right to remain in occupation thereof and as such cannot make any application for obtaining electricity supply at the premises. The private respondent claims that the petitioner and his erstwhile partner had all along received electricity from the private respondent and the petitioner is thus disqualified from obtaining a new connection.
(2.) THE legal question that arises is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to supply of electricity at the premises despite the dispute and despite it being unclear as to whether the petitioner is in lawful occupation of the premises. A fair concession has, however, been made by the private respondent in suggesting that the writ petitioner is not a rank trespasser in the sense that he entered into possession with the authority of the landlord but has now overstayed the welcome and does not have any authority to remain in possession. The petitioner refers to the change in the law, of the departure from the concept of "lawful occupation" in the Electricity Act of 1910 to the concept of occupier simpliciter in the Electricity Act of 2003. The petitioner suggests that the earlier judgments would have no application upon the change in law and it is a conscious decision of the legislature to drop the word "lawful" from the comparable provision.
(3.) THERE are several judgment that the principal contestants bring to bear on the matter. In the judgment reported at 2001 (2) CHN 71 (Nemai Hait v. CESC Limited and Anr.), a learned single Judge of this Court relied on a previous judgment to hold that in the light of the constitutional guarantee under Art.21, a person in possession of any premises for a long time had a right to apply for and obtain electricity. It must be appreciated that both the Nemai Halt judgment and the decision that it relied on (1999 (2) CHN 573 (Soumitra Banerjee and Ors. v. CESC Limited and Ors.)) were made when the 1910 Act was in force and an occupier had to be in lawful occupation of the premises to be entitled to an electricity connection thereat.;