MOMINA BEGAM vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

26. 02.09.2026.
Court No.07.

(Pritam)


WPA 19673 of 2026.


Momina Begam.
-Vs.-
State of West Bengal & Ors.


Mr. Md. Mokaram Hossain,
Mr. Razzak Hossain,
Mr. Karnab Biswas.
.....for the petitioner.

Mr. Srijan Nayak,
Mrs. Rituparna Maitra.
......for the WBSEDCL.

Mr. Dibasish Basu,
Ms. Smita Pal,
Ms. Sanjana Basu.
....for the State.


1. This writ petition alleges arbitrariness on the part the
respondent/WBSEDCL authorities in demanding
from the petitioner dues that remain outstanding in
respect of the same premises at the instance of the
erstwhile consumer, as a condition for grant of new
electricity supply.
2. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner has
applied for a new electricity connection and as a
condition to grant the same WBSEDCL is demanding
payment of sums that were left unpaid by the
erstwhile consumer.
3. It is asserted that the erstwhile consumer is no way
connected to the petitioner and as such, since there

2
is no nexus between the petitioner and the erstwhile
consumer. The petitioner contends that she is not
liable to pay anything in respect of the outstanding
dues of the said erstwhile consumer.
4. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appearing for the
WBSEDCL authority invites the attention of this
Court to annexure p-4 at page-16 to the writ petition,
to demonstrate that the dues that have been claimed
are in respect of one Sahid Ahamed. He next takes
this Court to the jurat portion of the writ petition to
show that the petitioner is the wife of the same Sahid
Ahamed. It is submitted that there is thus a clear
nexus between the petitioner and the erstwhile
consumer, whose dues are being claimed.
5. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that in terms of Section 56 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, the respondent/electricity licensee cannot
demand the outstanding dues of the erstwhile
consumer from the petitioner inasmuch as the same
are time-barred.
6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and considered the material on record.
7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is unable to
contradict the jurat portion of the writ petition where
the writ petitioner has been shown to be the wife of
Sahid Ahamed.

3
8. Regulations 3.4.2 and 4.6.4 of the West Bengal
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply
Code) Regulations, 2013 taken cumulatively would
indicate that the petitioner would be liable to clear
the dues of her husband if the petitioner wishes to
get a new electricity connection at the same premises
in respect whereof the electricity dues remain
outstanding at the instance of her husband.

9. The writ petitioner’s contention that Section 56 of the
2003 Act would bar the licensee from recovering the
dues from the petitioner is misconceived inasmuch as
Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 will be
applicable to the defaulting consumer and not to an
intending consumer.
10. The other submission of the learned advocate
appearing for the petitioner that presently, the
petitioner and her husband, i.e., the defaulting
consumer are not living together and they do not
share a good relationship, is also of no avail. There is
nothing on record to buttress such contention. The
bald assertion that the petitioner has no connection
with Sahid Ahamed in paragraph 8 of the writ
petition is belied by the affidavit in support of the
writ petition.
11. The action taken by the electricity licensee cannot
be said to be arbitrary or without jurisdiction.

4
12. For all the reasons aforesaid, WPA 19673 of 2026
stands dismissed. No costs.
13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance
of all necessary formalities.



(Om Narayan Rai, J.)