SK. ABBAS ALI vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

02.9.2026
Ct. no.7
D/L.6
Samarpita

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
(Appellate Side)


WPA 22811 of 2026

Sk. Abbas Ali
Vs.
State of West Bengal &ors.



Mr.JayantaSamnata,
Ms.KarunamoyeeSamanta,
Ms.Satabdi Bhattacharya,
Mr.RiddhiNaskar
… for the Petitioner

Dr.MadhusudanSaha Roy,
Mr.AnirbanTarafdar
..for the CESC
Mr.AnindyaBasu,
Mr.ParthaSarathiBasu
.. for the State.



1. This writ petition is directed against the action of the
respondent CESC authorities in disconnecting the
electricity supply at the petitioner’s premises on the
ground of unauthorised use of electricity.
2. The documents annexed to the writ petition reveals
that, the petitioner’s father was a registered
consumer of electricity at the relevant premises. The
saidelectricity supply was disconnected on May 29,
2026. The writ petitioner has asserted that at the
instance of the CESC authorities a criminal
proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner
without the petitioner being involved in any criminal
act or offence.

2
3. Mr.Jayanta Samanta, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner submits that, electricity supply at
the premises should be restored, since, the CESC
authorities have acted illegally.
4. Dr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent-CESC authority submits that, electricity
supply at the relevant premises was disconnected
upon unauthorised use of electricity being detected
by the authorised officer and the assessing officer,
who conducted inspection at the said premises.
5. It is submitted that an order of provisional
assessment was passed on May 29, 2026 and
thereafter, the petitioner himself attended the
hearing before the assessing officer on June 6, 2026.

6. It is next submitted that a final order of assessment
was ultimately passed on June 8,2026 and the same
was served upon the petitioner on June 12, 2026.
7. Copies of document showing participation of the
petitioner in the hearing before the assessing officer,
the final order of assessment and service thereof on
the petitioner’s mother have been produced in the
Court today. The same are taken on record.
8. Since a final order of assessment has already been
passed and served on the petitioner in June, 2026
this Court cannot intervene at this stage when the
writ petition has been filed on August 24, 2026 (i.e.
after the expiry of the period between which an

3
appeal could be preferred before the appellate
authority under Section 127 of the 2003 Act).

9. In fact, the writ petition is conspicuously silent as
regards theorder of provisional assessment as well
as the final order of the assessment.
10. Having regard to the above, no direction for
immediate restoration of electricity supply can be
passed.
11. It is now well-settled that restoration of supply of
electricity upon a final order of assessment being
passed can only be done upon payment of the finally
assessed sum in terms of Section 135(1A) read with
regulation 6.3 of the West Bengal Board Regulatory
Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations,
2013.
12. Thus, if the writ petitioner makes payment of the
finally assessed sum in its entirety to the CESC
authorities, the said authorities would restore the
electricity supply within forty eight hours of making
payment of such sum.
13. Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner requests this Court to pass a direction for
payment of the aforesaid sum in instalments and
restoration of the electricity supply in the meantime.
14. No mandatory direction in such regard can be
passed by this Court. However, petitioner is left free
to approach the respondent-CESC authorities with a
request for restoration of electricity supply upon

4
payment of a lumpsum(being a portion of the finally
assessed sum) and for accepting the balance of the
finally assessed sum in instalments within a
specified time frame. If such a request is made the
respondent-CESC authorities would consider such
request in the right earnest, in accordance with law.
15. However, it is clarified that the ultimate decision
would be taken by the CESC authorities
independently as there is no mandate of this Court.
16. Insofar as the other prayers in the writ petition is
concerned, the same are not maintainable before
this Court and accordingly the Court is not
entertaining the same.The petitioner shall however
remain free to agitate the petitioner’s grievances in
accordance with law before the appropriate forum.
17. WPA 22811 of 2026 stands disposed of.No costs.
18. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties upon
compliance of all requisite formalities.

<
(Om Narayan Rai, J.)