KRISHNENDU SAHA Vs. C.E.S.C. LTD. AND ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-2019-7-279
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 16,2019

KRISHNENDU SAHA Appellant
VERSUS
C.E.S.C. Ltd. And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

S J S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES P LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has moved this Court for installing electric supply located in the premises co-owned by the respondent no.3. The respondent no.4 in this writ petition is a tenant who occupies the space where the electric boxes are installed.
(2.)It appears to this Court that by an order dtd. 17/6/2019 an interim order had been passed by this Court directing the C.E.S.C. Ltd. to carry out shifting and/or installation of meter at the portion of the premises within the tenancy of the writ petitioner and/or a common space within the said premises.
(3.)Mr. Saikat Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 submits that when the interim order was passed, he was not represented and accordingly, he was unable to bring the correct facts before this Court. He submits that an earlier writ petition bearing W.P.310002(W) of 2017 had been filed by the writ petitioner and that had been dismissed by an order dated January 5, 2018 by a coordinate Bench. He submits that in the present writ petition, the writ petitioner has mentioned the above fact. However, the writ petitioner has failed to mention the fact that against the order dated January 5, 2018 an appeal had been preferred by the writ petitioner under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent bearing M.A.T. 688 of 2018 along with two connected applications bearing C.A.N.4984 of 2018 and C.A.N. 5004 of 2018. He further submits that since the factum of the appeal not having been disclosed in this writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs. He also submits that the factum of filing an appeal is a relevant fact and relies on S.J.S. Business Enterprise (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2004) 7 S.C.C. 166 for the above proposition of law. It is to be noted that in the said judgement Supreme Court observed that all facts do not amount to suppression of material facts. However, the Supreme Court further held that suppression of material facts would result in dismissal of the writ petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.