Calcutta High Court
WPA/26528/2026 of SAMIR KUMAR SAMANTA @ SAMIR KR. SAMANTA Vs THE CESE LIMITED AND ORS. on 24 September 2026
Ct. No.652 D/L 04 ( NMD) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 26528 of 2026 Samir Kumar Samanta @ Samir Kr. Samanta Vs. The CESE Ltd. & Ors. Dr. Achin Jana, Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh, Ms. Chetna Rustagi, Mrs. Derothi Mukherjee, Mr. S. Thakur
24.09.2026
Ct. No.652
D/L 04
( NMD)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
(Appellate Side)
W.P.A. 26528 of 2026
Samir Kumar Samanta @ Samir Kr. Samanta
Vs.
The CESE Ltd. & Ors.
Dr. Achin Jana,
Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh,
Ms. Chetna Rustagi,
Mrs. Derothi Mukherjee,
Mr. S. Thakur
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee
…for the CESC
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Affidavit-of-service is filed in Court today, let it be taken on record.
2. The petitioner files the instant writ petition alleging in action on part of the respondent authority to provide him with new connection.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner appears virtually. He submits that the petitioner is occupier of the ground floor of the premises being the licensee. In support of this contention he has relied upon the document annexed with the writ petition i.e. licensee agreement.
4. The petitioner’s further contention is that an online application has been submitted by him, for grant of a new connection at the premises upon payment of statutory fees.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that though the respondent authority has conducted inspection over the premises, further action for granting electricity connection and installation of meter could not be done by the respondent authority particularly in view of the objections and resistance put forth by the landlady.
6. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent authority submits that he is not in disagreement with the fact that the petitioner being the lawful occupier of the premises, is eligible for grant of electricity connection.
7. Having heard submissions of both the learned Advocates for the respective parties, it is found that admittedly the petitioner is the resident and occupier on the ground floor of the premises, he being the licensee over there.
8. He has applied for grant of separate electricity connection in accordance with the law.
9. Therefore, the writ petitioner is duly eligible under the law for grant of the electricity connection at the premises, which he occupies as a licensee, for which he has duly applied.
10. Let the authority conduct inspection, if necessary, and proceed further to grant electricity connection as per prayer of the writ petitioner made before it, subject to fulfillment of all formalities by the petitioner. The exercise as above should be concluded by the respondent authority within a period of fortnight from the date of this order.
11. Let it be mentioned that the connection is to be provided to the petitioner from the subsisting meter board position. The respondent authority is at liberty to seek for police help to executive the work of installation of electricity line, necessary costs of which shall be borne by the petitioner himself.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation.
13. No order as to costs.
14. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the
parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)