Rohit Cargo Movers vs. Cesc Limited And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Rohit Cargo Movers, sought an electricity connection for its business premises. CESC Limited, the licensee, had no objection, provided formalities were met. However, the private respondent no.5 objected, claiming exclusive possession of the property and alleging the petitioner's attempt to encroach. The private respondent argued that the petitioner failed to demonstrate settled possession, a prerequisite for an electricity connection under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and cited a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court. The respondent also questioned the validity of the petitioner's trade license and telephone bill as proof of possession, suggesting a visual inspection was necessary. The petitioner countered by presenting various documents, including a Certificate of Enlistment, telephone bills, road challans, invoices, bank statements, and GST returns, to establish its settled possession and right to a connection.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had produced sufficient prima facie material to establish settled possession of the property for the purpose of obtaining an electricity connection. The Court distinguished the 'lawful occupation' requirement under the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, which pertains to the licensee drawing lines over third-party property, from the applicant's possession of the premises for which the connection is sought under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court found that the petitioner's Certificate of Enlistment, telephone bills, and other business-related documents sufficiently indicated its possession. It reasoned that disputes regarding possession are best resolved in a regular civil suit and are not within the limited fact-finding scope of a writ petition or the purview of the electricity licensee. Therefore, the Court directed CESC Limited to conduct an inspection for feasibility and appropriate location of the connection, raise a quotation, and provide the connection upon the petitioner's compliance with formalities. The Court also directed police assistance if obstruction was encountered from the private respondent, while clarifying that the connection would not create any special rights for the petitioner or prejudice ongoing civil disputes.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has established settled possession of the disputed property to be entitled to an electricity connection under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, considering the objection of the private respondent no.5? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that it had produced sufficient prima facie material, including a Certificate of Enlistment, telephone bills, road challans, invoices, bank statements, and GST returns, to establish its settled possession for the purpose of obtaining an electricity connection. It argued that a detailed inquiry into possession was beyond the scope of a writ petition and the licensee's role. Revenue/State's (Private Respondent no.5) arguments: The private respondent argued that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate settled possession, relying on the Full Bench decision in Abhimanyu Mazumdar Vs. The Superintending Engineer and another, which requires actual physical possession over a sufficiently long period, known to the owner, and with an animus possidendi. The respondent questioned the validity of the petitioner's trade license and telephone bill, suggesting a visual inspection was necessary to ascertain actual possession. The respondent also presented evidence from a civil suit and a Section 144 CrPC proceeding indicating its own possession.