BUHAIMON THANGKHIEW Vs. MEGHALAYA ENERGY CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H. Kharmih, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Factual matrix: - -

(2.) IN the year 2008, it is stated that the some encroachers, who are occupying a portion of the said plot of land forcibly started taking illegal electricity from the existing pole which was installed to supply electricity to the erstwhile distillery on the said plot of land and accordingly, the petitioner made a complaint dated 10.03.2008 to the Assistant Engineer (Revenue) MeSEB Revenue Division -2, Shillong for taking necessary action against the illegal connection by causing inspection of the said plot of land of the petitioner. The said complaint was also followed by many complaints. Thereafter, on the basis of the said complaint against illegal connection of the electricity by the alleged encroachers of the petitioner's said plot of land had been disconnected. Only in the month of February, 2011, the petitioner had learnt that the encroachers of the petitioner's said plot of land started getting electricity connection. Again, the petitioner made a complaint dated 02.11.2011 to the Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Circle, M.E.C.L. (Me.S.E.B.), Lum Jingshai, Shillong for immediately stopping the supply of electricity to the said unauthorised encroachers of the petitioner's said plot of land. Only on 03.11.2011, the petitioner was furnished a copy of the letter issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Distribution Circle, MeECL, Shillong dated 03.11.2011 to the Additional Chief Engineer (EZ), MeECL, Shillong that "as per the legal cell views vide letter under reference at Sl. No. 2 it is stated that the Board may perhaps proceed on the basis of occupation and accordingly, connections may be given to them subject to necessary payment such as advance bill payment, etc."

(3.) IT is the submission of Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that a person who forces himself into any part of the premises owned by the petitioner cannot be treated as an occupier of such premises for the purpose of Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003. Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel in support of his contention placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Samsul Haque Mollick v. CESC Ltd. and Ors. : AIR 2006 Calcutta 73. Para 4 of the AIR in Samsul Haque Mollick case (supra) reads as follows: