Calcutta High Court
MAT/84/2021 of CESC LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs MINA CHAKRABORTY on 7 September 2026
M/L 06 Ct. No.4 (Naba) M.A.T. 84 of 2021 CESC Limited & Anr. Vs. Smt. Mina Chakraborty Mr. Subir Sanyal, Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy ...for the Appellants 1. Affidavit- of -service filed on behalf of the learned advocate for the appellants is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned advocate for
07.09.2026
M/L 06
Ct. No.4
(Naba)
M.A.T. 84 of 2021
CESC Limited & Anr.
Vs.
Smt. Mina Chakraborty
Mr. Subir Sanyal,
Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy
...for the Appellants
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 filed on behalf of the learned advocate for the appellants is taken on record.
2. Heard the learned advocate for the appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondent.
3. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 13.01.2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed for raising a quotation and for taking steps to provide the electrical connection as sought by the writ petitioner/respondent. The aforesaid order is subject matter of challenge.
4. It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants, that the writ petitioner/respondent obtained the order by suppressing material facts. The letter dated 16.09.2019, issued to the writ petitioner/respondent by the District Engineer, Calcutta Central District containing the reasons for disallowing the connection was not brought to the attention of the Hon’ble Single Judge.
5. In terms of Clause 14 of Regulation 53 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery & Expenditure for Providing New Connection) Regulations, 2013, the said letter dated 16.09.2019 was required to be challenged by the petitioners. In absence of challenge to the letter, the writ application is not maintainable.
6. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that no opportunity was granted to the appellants/respondents to file an affidavit-in- opposition, to convert the allegations made in the writ application.
7. That by filing a supplementary affidavit, the appellants contended that, by a letter dated 16.09.2019, the reasons for the non-issuance of the quotation were duly intimated to the writ petitioner/respondent. Under Clause 14 of the 2013 Regulations, an aggrieved party must file an appropriate application before the office concerned, as specified in the said Regulations.
8. Despite of two notices being issued and validly served upon the respondent, there is no representation on her behalf.
9. Accordingly, we have decided to proceed with the appeal ex parte.
10. We have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellants. Considered the materials-on- record.
11. It appears that the said reasoned order has not been challenged by the writ petitioner. Without challenging the said order, the reliefs claimed in the writ application could not be granted.
12. We are of the considered opinion that unless the letter dated 16.09.2019 was challenged, no relief can be granted in favour of the writ petitioner. The Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the writ application without addressing the aforesaid issue. Thus, we are of the view that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for, unless the letter dated 16.09.2019 is set aside and/or quashed.
13. Accordingly, we allow this appeal by setting aside the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WPA 3054 of 2020 with liberty to the writ petitioner to challenge the letter dated 16.09.2019 in accordance with law, if so advised.
14. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
(Partha Pratim Roy, J.)