1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for an Order commanding upon the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to give a new Electricity connection in his name in the premises situated in the first Floor of FC-110; Sector-3, Salt Lake City, Kolkata.
2. It appears that this case was initially placed before another Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court on 4-6-2007 when, after considering the submissions, it was observed that the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue to live in darkness and the Respondent Authorities were therefore directed to accept the Application of the petitioner without insisting on the No Objection Certificate to be issued by the Landlord or the owner of the House. The said Hon'ble single Judge did take into consideration that there was a strained relationship between the parties but nevertheless, after making the aforementioned observations, directed thar the Authorities would accept the Application of the petitioner in the manner referred to above.
3. It appears that thereafter on 10-8-2007 an interlocutory Application being CAN 5017 of 2007 was filed by Smt. Sampa Acharya, daughter of Kiran Chandra Acharya (being the sister of the Petitioner) praying for being added as a Respondent in this writ petition. Consequently, by Order dated 10-8-2007, the said Interlocutory Application for addition of party was disposed of and she was added as a party Respondent in this case.
Thereafter on 21-9-2007 the matter was however released by the said Hon'ble single Judge due to paucity of time where after this case was mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that prior to mentioning the matter before this Court, the same was moved before Hon'ble the Chief Justice but no Order was passed. However, the Office of the Hon'ble Chief Justice made an endorsement on the mentioning slip observing that the matter may be mentioned before the Bench taking ‘Hearing Matters’. In view of the determination of this Court to take up matters which are ready for hearing irrespective of classification of the cases and irrespective of the year of the case, the matter was thereafter moved before this Court and on 5-10-2007, Mr. Bidyut Banerjee appeared on behalf of the newly added Respondents and requested that the matter be listed on Monday i.e on 8-10-2007. Consequently on 8-10-2007 the matter was heard and hearing was concluded and made C.A.V However the matter was again listed under the heading “to be mentioned” on 9-10-2007 when the following Order was passed where after it was again made C.A.V
“9-10-2007 W.P 8631(W) of 2007 Mr. Amzad Ali, for the Petitioner Mr. Bidyut Banerjee Ms. Shila Sarkar Mr. Arnab Roy, for the Respondent Mr. Sujit Sarkar Koley, for the W.B.S.E.D.C.L
This case has been listed at the instance of the Court after hearing was concluded and made C.A.V yesterday i.e on 8-10-2007. At the time of going through the file after reserving judgment, a doubt crept in my mind as to whether I had the determination to hear this case as this was a Group IX matter and that too because the Cause List of yesterday did not indicate the determination of this Court. That was why I ordered the matter to be listed under the heading “To Be Mentioned”. Today it has been so listed and the learned counsel appearing for each of the parties drew my attention to the Monthly/Combined List of October, 2007 and the relevant portion thereof reads as follows:—
“Matters under Article 226 of the Constitution which are ready for hearing irrespective of classification of cases and irrespective of years and Application relating thereto.”
Learned counsel appearing for each of the parties submitted that this is a case which is ready for hearing and all Affidavits have been exchanged and by Order dated 4-6-07 another Hon'ble single Judge of this Court had already directed the matter to appear as a ‘Contested Application.’
For the foregoing reasons and the doubt having now been cleared and arguments having already been concluded by the respective Counsel appearing for the parties, the case is again reserved for judgment.
(Tapen Sen, J.)”
(Quoted Verbatim)
4. The petitioner has stated in para 2 that he is a bona fide resident of the “Suit Premises” who had made the first floor from his own income and that he is in possession and occupation of the said premises since the building was constructed in the year 1988. He has also stated that his father, along with his family members, were enjoying electricity through the meter standing in the name of his mother (since deceased). He has stated that in the month of March, the Electricity Bill was not available and as a result thereof the Bill for the month of March remained unpaid. Suddenly and on or about 30-3-2007, authorised persons of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 visited the premises and disconnected power supply to the first floor. It has been stated that having come to learn of such disconnection, the Petitioner's wife, who is a School Teacher, went to the Office of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and paid the outstanding bills and also paid the advance bill for April 2007. After receiving the same, the staff of the Respondent No. 3 went to the premises for restoring electricity supply but the Respondent No. 5 (appears to have been wrongly mentioned as Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition because the Respondent No. 4 is the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station whereas the dispute is between the petitioner. Respondent No. 5 and the newly added Respondent No. 6) along with his men restrained them from reconnecting the premises with power. Thereafter the wife of the petitioner lodged a complaint before the police station vide Bidhannagar South P.S.G.D Entry No. 1907, dated 31-3-2007. On 2-4-2007, the petitioner also filed an Application under Section 144(2) of the Cr. P.C before the learned Executive Magistrate, Bidhannagar vide M.P case No. 530 of 2007 wherein prayer was made for reconnection of the Electricity in the premises also. The learned Magistrate directed the authorities to reconnect the Electricity whereafter the police along with persons connected with the Respondent Power Authorities came to the residence on 5-4-2007 but because of vehement objection raised by the Respondent No. 5 (appears to have been again wrongly mentioned as Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) they could not enter into the premises. A complaint was accordingly lodged.
5. The petitioner has stated that on 2-4-2007 he therefore went to the Office of the Respondent No. 1 to apply for a new connection in his name and accordingly, purchased the Requisite Form which was duly filled up but when he went to submit the same, the Respondent refused to accept it on the ground that it was not accompanied by a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the owner of the House (Respondent No. 5 which is father of the petitioner) who, according to the petitioner, would naturally refuse to render any co-operation to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has stated that being surprised by such inhuman behaviour of his own father and carrying an apprehension with regard to possession of the premises, he filed a Civil Suit in the Court of the learned 3rd Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah and by Order dated 13-4-2007 the said Court passed an Order directing maintenance of status quo in respect of the premises.
7. The petitioner has stated in para 10 that he is spending his days along with his family without electricity since 30th March, 2007 and is running from pillar to post to take a new connection but the same has been refused to be given by the authorities.
8. An Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the electricity Respondents (Nos. 1, 2 and 3) who have stated that Consumer No. B 123283 of FC-110 being Service Connection No. 2006 was disconnected on 30th March, 2007 due to non-payment of monthly bills but after such disconnection and on the same day, someone paid the bill amount along with disconnection/reconnection charges. Thereafter their technical staff went to the premises for restoring supply of power but the same could not be done due to objection raised by some persons of the same premises. It has further been stated that the Executive Magistrate, Bidhannagar had passed an Order whereafter, the Station Manager requested the Officer-in-charge, South Bidhannagar Police Station to render Police assistance for purposes of restoration of power but the Police refused to do so. Thereafter on 3-4-2007 an Order was again passed by the learned Magistrate by which the authorities were directed to keep the matter relating to the service connection in abeyance as the case was civil in nature. Meanwhile Smt. Sampa Acharya (newly added Respondents) began pressurising the authorities to permanently disconnect the power supply to FC 110 by filing an Application from which it was revealed that the person in whose name the connection was standing, namely, Jyotsna Acharya and who is her mother, had already expired on 8th January, 2007 and that the property in question had been gifted in her name (Smt. Sampa Acharya) and that the same had also been mutated in the Bidhannagar Municipality on 31-3-2007 in the name of the said Smt. Sampa Acharya.
9. These Respondents have stated that since different proceedings are going on, they were not in a position to take positive steps and therefore there was hardly any scope to effect connection to the said “Suit Premises.”
10. The affidavit-in-opposition of the newly added Respondent No. 6 (Smt. Sampa Acharya) discloses that there is a serious dispute between the petitioner on the one side, and her father and she on the other side. She, has stated that the Respondent No. 5 (her father as well as father of the petitioner) had taken the property on lease for a period 999 years and since then had been enjoying property after constructing a residential two storied building thereon. She has further stated that out of natural love and affection, the Respondent No. 5 made a registered Deed of Gift in her favour on 25-9-2006 and gifted the remaining period of the lease together with the structure standing thereon in her favour. Consequently, the right, title and interest in respect of the property now vests upon her. She has also stated that after the execution of the deed of gift, the Respondent No. 5 had applied for mutation in her favour and by Memo dated 14-11-2006, the Officer-on-Special Duty and ex-Officio Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Urban Development, had informed the Respondent No. 5 vide Annexure R2, that the Government had allowed the mutation in the name of the Respondent No. 6 in respect of Plot No. 110, Block No. FC, Sector-3, Bidhannagar Town, Kolkata together with the building standing thereon. She has further stated that thereafter, by Memo dated 31-1-2007 (Annexure R3), the Executive Officer of the Bidhannagar Municipality informed the newly added Respondent No. 6 that the Municipality had been pleased to amend/alter the assessment list in respect of the said premises with effect from 14-11-2006.
11. She has further stated that after such mutation, she filed Title Suit No. 69 of 2007 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court, Barasat against the petitioner praying for his eviction and also for a permanent injunction restraining him from changing the nature and character of the Suit property and, by an Order dated 21st May, 2007, the learned civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court at Barasat, directed the parties to maintain status quo.
Let it be recorded that the Respondent No. 6 has stated in Para 3(e) that in the Plaint and in the Application for injunction filed by her in the aforementioned Court she had prayed for eviction of the petitioner stating that he was a licensee under her and that she had requested him to quit and vacate the property but instead of doing so he was trying to cause addition/alteration to the suit property.
It is not necessary to deal with further facts as from whatever have been noticed till this point, the scenario that emerges to this Court is that the property which is the subject-matter of the suit belonged to the father of the petitioner as well as of the Respondent No. 6 (i.e the Respondent No. 5) but during his lifetime, he made a deed of gift in favour of this daughter and after getting her name mutated, she has filed the aforementioned Suit for the eviction of her brother, i.e the petitioner.
12. Under S. 43 of the Electricity Act 2003, the “Licensee” defined under Section 2(39) of the Act, has the duty to supply electricity on an Application made either by the “owner” or the “Occupier” of the premises within one month from the date of receipt of such Application.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the newly added respondent No. 6 has herself stated in her Affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner was a Licensee under her and that she had requested him to quit and vacate the property and since she has filed a suit for his eviction, the said statements are sufficient to establish that the petitioner, at least, is an Occupier of the property in question and therefore, the power distribution Company is under a statutory obligation to give power to the premises. Mr. Amjad Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in the case of Shyama Singh & Ors. v. Cesc Limited & Anr., reported in 2005 (4) CHN 169 in support of his contention that under the relevant statutory provisions, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of electricity connection in spite of the fact that Suits are pending between the parties. He has relied upon this judgment also in support of his contention that by mere grant of electricity, the same will not mean that it will affect the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending litigations. Learned counsel also relies upon an unreported judgment of another Hon'ble single Judge passed in the case of James S. Peters v. CESC passed in W.P No. 2614 of 1998. In support of his contention that the only point that should be taken into consideration is that the petitioner, being in possession of the premises and such possession having not been declared to be illegal or unauthorized, he is entitled under the statute to have Electricity.
14. In retaliation to the aforementioned point argued, Mr. Bidyut Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that so far as the word “Occupier” is concerned, the same has not been defined under the Electricity Act 2003 but under the Strouds Judicial Dictionary, the word “Occupier” means “the tenant, though absent, is generally speaking the “Occupier” of premises”. According to him, the petitioner being not a tenant, cannot therefore be said to be an Occupier. He further submits that the Division Bench judgment cited by Sardar Amjad Ali reported in 2005 (4) CHN 169, cannot apply because the said judgment does not deal with the definition of the word “Occupier” and therefore, it can have no application, in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Mr. Bidyut Banerjee, on the contrary has referred to two judgments of another Hon'ble Singh Judge of this Court, one of which has been passed in the case of Samsul Haque Mollick v. CESC Ltd., reported in AIR 2006 Cal 73 wherein his Lordship has held that an unlawful occupant of a part of premises is not entitled to get Electricity.
This Court is unable to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents for the reasons stated hereinafter.
In Black's Law Dictionary, the word “Occupier” has been defined as an occupant and an “Occupant”, in the same dictionary, has been defined to be a person in possession. The word “Occupier” and “Occupant” as defined in the Blacks Law Dictionary are therefore more relevant to be taken note of, in the facts and circumstances of this case where the newly added Respondent No. 6 has herself gone on record by making the following statement in para 3(e) of her Affidavit-in-oppoisition which reads as follows:—
“3(e) that after mutation of my name in respect of the premises in question I brought a Title suit being No. 69 of 2007 in the court of learned 2nd Court, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Barasat against the Opposite Party/writ petitioner inter alia for eviction and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for injunction and restraining the petitioner from changing nature and character of the suit property. In the said plaint and in the injunction application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 it was stated that petitioner is a licensee under me and I requested the petitioner to quit and vacate the said property but petitioner instead of vacating the said property trying to cause addition/alteration in the suit property and hence the suit and prayed for injunction as aforesaid.”
(Quoted Verbatim but emphasis by bond fonts is supplied by this Court)
15. In the context of what the Respondent No. 6 has stated in the aforementioned paragraph, the definition given in Blacks Law Dictionary defining the words “Occupier” and “Occupant” become more relevant. They read as follows:—
“Occupier—An occupant; one who is in the enjoyment of a thing.
Occupant—Person in possession, Person having possession rights, who can control what goes on premises. One who has actual use, possession or control of a thing. Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County v. Stepanik, 26 Pa Cmwith 180, 360 A. 2d 300, 302. One who takes the first possession of a thing of which there is no owner. One who occupies and takes possession. Person who acquires title by occupancy. See also Occupancy; Occupation; Possession.
Common occupant. See General occupant, below.
General occupant. At common law where a man was tenant pur autre vie, or had an estate granted to himself only (without mentioning his heirs) for the life of another man, and died without alienation during the life of cestui que vie, or him by whose life it was holden, he that could first enter on the land might lawfully retain the possession, so long as cestui que vie lived, by right of occupancy, and was hence termed a “general” or common “Occupant”.
Special occupant. A person having a special right to enter upon and occupy lands granted pur autre vie, on the death of the tenant, and during the life of cestui que vie.” (Quoted Verbatim)
16. So far as Strouds Judicial Dictionary is concerned, the definition of the word “Occupier” has also given an illustration vide Entry No. 21, the photocopy whereof was submitted by Mr. Bidyut Banerjee himself and which reads as follows:—
“(21) “Person in actual occupation.” S. 71, “Occupier”, S. 124, Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838) (1 & 2 Vict. c. 56), see Middleton v. M'Donnell, (1896) 2 IR 228; Immediate Use of Enjoyment.”
(Quoted Verbatim but emphasis by bond fonts is supplied by this Court).
17. Thus, the illustration given in Strouds Judicial Dictionary is similar to the definition of the word “Occupier” given in the Blacks Law Dictionary.
18. Thus, the judgment cited by the learned counsel, namely the case of Samsul Haque Mollick (AIR 2006 Cal 73) (supra) cannot be made applicable because in order to apply the said Judgment, it must be proved that the person claiming Electricity is an “unlawful” occupant.
19. Let it be recorded that from the facts gathered, a number of the litigations are pending inter se between the parties and in one such litigation initiated by the newly added Respondent No. 6, she has herself admitted in her own Affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner is a licensee under her. This therefore establishes that the petitioner cannot be equated as an unlawful occupant for purposes of applying the judgment of Mollick's case supra. On the contrary, he is an Occupier/Occupant as per the definition given in Blacks Law Dictionary.
Therefore unless and until there is an adjudication in any of the proceedings referred to above or in any of the proceedings pending inter se between the parties holding that the petitioner is an unlawful occupant or is a trespasser on the property, his status, till then, is that of an “Occupier” under Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003.
Let it further be recorded that in para 3(e), the newly added Respondent No. 6 has also stated that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court at Barasat had passed an Order on 21-5-2007 directing the parties to maintain status quo which had been extended up to 17-9-2007. This Order is Annexure-R4 appended to the writ petition. However nothing has been brought on record to show as to whether that Order has since been vacated or whether it is still continuing.
20. Mr. Bidyut Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents then relied upon another judgment of the same Hon'ble single Judge of this Court passed in the case of Debdas Biswas v. WBSEB in W.P 2455(W) of 2005 (reported in AIR 2008 Cal 29). In the said judgment, the view taken is that His Lordship was unable to agree that mere possession of a portion of the premises was sufficient to entitle the applicant to make a claim for supply of Electricity in terms of Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003. The observation of the Hon'ble single Judge passed in W.P No. 2455(W) of 2005 reads as follows:
“I am unable to agree with counsel for the petitioner that mere possession of a portion of the premises by the petitioner was sufficient to make him entitled to call upon the first respondent to supply him electricity in terms of the provisions in S. 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In view of what was held in Samsul Haque Mollick v. CESC Ltd., AIR 2006 Cal 73. I hold that unless the petitioner establishes that he is a lawful occupant of a portion of the premises in question, he is not entitled to call upon the first respondent to supply him electricity in the discharge of its statutory obligation cast by the provisions in S. 43.
In Associated Indam Order was made for supply of electricity on the peculiar facts of that case after holding that an unlawful occupier would not be entitled to claim supply of electricity as a matter of right. The authorities were directed to supply electricity during pendency of proceedings before the civil Court that was to decide the right of the petitioner therein to occupy any portion of the premises according to law. Relief granted in that case, on the facts thereof, cannot, in my view, be considered to be a binding precedent. In Nemai Hait once again order was made directing the licensee to supply electricity noticing that the respondents in the writ petition concerned did not come up with a case that the petitioner therein forced himself into the premises concerned or that he was a criminal or a trespasser or an outlaw.
It is therefore clear that in the face of the allegation that the petitioner forced himself into the premises, in my view, it cannot be held, in the absence of proper adjudication on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and recorded by the competent civil Court, that the petitioner is not an unlawful occupant of a portion of the premises. In my view, the definition of the expression ‘occupier’ given in the rules, I have been referred to, cannot improve the situation. For getting supply of electricity at the premises, the petitioner has to establish first that he is a lawful occupier to any portion of the premises. I am unable to come to a finding, in so far as that question is concerned. Highly disputed questions of fact have arisen, and in my view, the civil Court is the only appropriate forum for their adjudication and determination.”
(Quoted Verbatim but emphasis by bold fonts is underlining by this Court).
21. From the underlined portion highlighted by bold fonts above, it is evident that the petitioner in that case “had forced himself into the premises.” This is not so in the instant case and therefore, the said judgment is easily distinguishable and cannot have any application in this case.
22. Mr. Bidyut Banerjee then relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Smt. Aanjali Metia v. West Bengal State Electricity Board, reported in (2006) 4 CHN 43 : (2007) 1 Cal LT 219 in support of his contention that a person cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and therefore the said person who is a trespasser cannot, by continuing his trespass, claim the character of an Occupier.
23. I am afraid, the said judgment has no Application at all to the facts and circumstances of this case. The observations of the Division Bench made in Para 8 clearly distinguishes the said case from the facts and circumstances involved in this case. Para 8 of the said judgment reads as follows:
“We are not, therefore, in a position to agree and uphold the judgment of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge was bound to discuss and decide as to whether the petitioner could be in law termed to be an occupier within the meaning of section 43. A person cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Therefore, the person who is a trespasser cannot by continuing his trespass claim the character of an occupier, and as such claim the rightful supply of electricity under Section 43 of the Electricity Act. However, this question was not even addressed by the learned Judge. As if all this is not sufficient, the learned Judge should also have noted that the Title Suit filed by the petitioner for declaration of his 1/5th right in the property is dismissed and the appeal against the same is not pending. It is only a condonation of delay application which seems to have been pending before the Appellate Court and for the reasons known only to the parties, and the Court that application still remains undecided in spite of elapse of four years of its filing. Therefore, at least prima facie the petitioner did not produce any material either before the Board or before the learned Judge justifying his lawful occupation of the premises.”
(Quoted Verbatim)
24. Upon a perusal of the aforementioned paragraph, it is evident that the Division Bench has observed that the single Judge is required and bound to discuss and decide as to whether the petitioner can be termed to be an “Occupier” within the meaning of Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003. So far as this observation is concerned, this Court has already given such a finding by a reasoned discussion made in paragraphs 14 to 19 above. The Hon'ble Division Bench has stated that a person who is a trespasser cannot be allowed to claim that right to get electricity under Section 43 of the Act. This Court has already held in the paragraphs mentioned above that the petitioner is an occupier/occupant under Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003. He is therefore not a trespasser and consequently, the effect of the Division Bench judgment cannot have any Application in this case where, it is a specific case of the newly added Respondent No. 6 herself that the Petitioner was a licensee under her as will be evident from her statements in para 3(e) of the Affidavit-in-opposition which has been extracted in para 14 above.
25. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner has the right to claim Electricity as an Occupier under Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003. Consequently this Court however, makes it very clear that whatever observations have been made in this judgment are only to be construed and interpreted in the context of the petitioner's right to have electricity so long as he remains in possession of the property in question because no one, in the modern days can survive without Electricity, and therefore, the right to Electricity is also a right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court therefore makes it once again very clear that the grant of electrical connection to the writ petitioner in view of the Order passed by this Court will not mean to be any adjudication in respect of any of the proceedings or the suit/suits which may be pending inter se between the parties and this Court also makes it clear that the observations made herein in this judgment for the grant of Electricity to the petitioner will not in any way be deemed to affect the rights and contentions of the parties to the proceedings which are pending between them.
26. With the aforesaid observations, this Court directs the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to take all steps immediately and forthwith to grant Electricity connection to the petitioner in terms directed by the earlier order dated 4-6-2007. That Order is made absolute and the same, for convenience, is reproduced below as follows:
4-6-07 W.P No. 8631(w) of 2007
Sardar Amjad Ali
Mrs. Sucharita Roy (Bhattacharya)
………for the petitioner
Mr. S.S Koley for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
This is an application for a direction upon the authority to give a new electrical connection to the petitioner for installing a new meter.
The case of the petitioner is that he was enjoying electricity from the meter lying in the name of his deceased mother. This supply was discontinued from 30th March, 2007 and in spite of all efforts to get the reconnection, the same have proved to be futile.
Thereafter, an attempt was made to file an application with the authority concerned for new electrical connection, but the same was not accepted as the petitioner was unable to get a “No Objection Certificate” from the owner of the said premises. Hence, the instant application has been filed.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent authority submits that the family dispute is between the father and the son and at the time of reconnection, it was submitted that the premises had been gifted to the sister by the father. The authorities are ready and willing to restore the supply, provided no objection is raised by the father or the sister of the petitioner.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, it appears that a title suit was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Third Court, Sealdah and by order dated 13th April, 2007 the authority was directed to maintain status quo. The petitioner cannot be allowed to continue to live in darkness and the respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to accept the application of the petitioner without insisting on the “No Objection Certificate” to be issued by the landlord or the owner of the house. This order is being passed as from the facts it appears that the relation between the owner of the premises, namely, the father and the petitioner is strained. The petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No. 5. Directions are given for filing affidavits.
Let the affidavit in opposition be filed by 2nd July, 2007. Affidavit in reply, if any, be filed by 9th July, 2007. The matter shall appears in the list as Contested Application on 13th July, 2007.
(Patherya, J.)”
(Quoted Verbatim)
27. The Respondent No. 4 (Officer-in-charge, Bidhannagar, South Police Station) is directed to render all assistance and cooperation to the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in case there is any obstruction or objection from the side of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed.
Upon appropriate Application (s) being made, urgent Xeroxed Certified copy of this Order, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.
The photocopies of the aforementioned unreported judgments which have been quoted above are directed to be retained with the records of this case.
After the judgment was delivered in Court, learned counsel for the parties prayed for a plain copy of the same so that they could take steps in terms directed herein.
Taking into consideration the nature of the dispute that was involved in this case, this Court grants them the aforementioned prayer and directs that a plain copy of this judgment, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the parties.
Petition allowed.
Comments