The Calcutta High Court has declined to direct CESC Limited to provide electricity to a premises that had already been declared unsafe and was liable to be demolished. Justice Om Narayan Rai held that a mandatory direction for electricity supply could not be issued where the condition of the building posed a serious safety risk.
Background
The petition was filed by M/s. S.A. Printers and another, who sought an electricity connection for premises at 121/4K, Manicktala Main Road, Kolkata, where a printing press was being operated. The petitioners alleged that CESC had initially cited a garbage dump blocking the entrance as the reason for not providing the connection.
According to the petitioners, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation subsequently cleared the garbage and issued a certificate. They further claimed that when CESC raised an objection concerning a private respondent, they approached the police authorities and obtained a written no-objection.
The petitioners also relied on an injunction obtained in a separate title suit concerning their tenancy. They argued that despite completing the necessary formalities, electricity supply had still not been provided.
CESC, however, told the Court that the premises had been ordered to be demolished by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The Court was also informed that an earlier challenge to the demolition order had been rejected by a Coordinate Bench.
Justice Om Narayan Rai examined the material placed before the Court, including the handwritten notes relied upon by the petitioners. The Court observed that those notes did not inspire confidence. However, even assuming their contents to be correct, the Court found that electricity could not be directed to a premises facing demolition.
The Court noted the earlier judgment concerning the same premises, where the Coordinate Bench had recorded that part of the building had already collapsed and the remaining structure was in imminent danger of falling. The earlier Court had held that public safety required preventive action and that a dilapidated structure could not be allowed to remain merely to preserve tenancy rights.
The Court further referred to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which generally requires electricity supply upon an application by an owner or occupier, subject to other provisions of the law, including safety and security considerations.
Justice Rai observed:
"In the present case - where there is serious risk of safety and the premises itself is liable to be fully demolished as indicated hereinabove, due to its dilapidated condition - a mandatory direction on the respondent distribution licensee to effect electricity supply to such premises, is wholly unwarranted."
The Court concluded that the petitioners had not established a case for issuing a writ of mandamus directing CESC to provide electricity to the premises. The writ petition was therefore not entertained.
Accordingly, WPA 21296 of 2026 was dismissed without any order as to costs.
