A spouse seeking new electricity supply must clear the defaulting consumer’s dues at the same premises.

The petitioner applied for a fresh electricity connection at premises where electricity dues remained outstanding in the name of the erstwhile consumer, Sahid Ahamed.

WBSEDCL required payment of those dues as a condition for granting the new connection.

The petitioner contended that she had no connection with the erstwhile consumer and was not liable for his dues.

WBSEDCL relied on the writ petition’s jurat, which described the petitioner as Sahid Ahamed’s wife, and asserted a nexus between them.

The writ petition challenged the legality and alleged arbitrariness of WBSEDCL’s demand.

Whether WBSEDCL could require the petitioner to clear the outstanding electricity dues of her husband, the erstwhile consumer, as a condition for granting a new electricity connection at the same premises.

Whether Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 barred WBSEDCL from insisting upon payment of the outstanding dues from the petitioner on the ground that the dues were time-barred.

Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of present cohabitation or strained relationship with the erstwhile consumer defeated WBSEDCL’s demand.

The Court applied Regulations 3.4.2 and 4.6.4 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013, read cumulatively, to hold that an intending consumer seeking a new connection at premises burdened by the previous consumer’s unpaid electricity dues may be required to clear those dues where a sufficient nexus exists between the intending and defaulting consumers.

The Court further held that Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which concerns disconnection and recovery of charges from a defaulting consumer, applies to the defaulting consumer and not to an intending consumer seeking a fresh connection.

The Court found that the petitioner could not contradict the jurat identifying her as the wife of Sahid Ahamed, the consumer against whom the dues had been raised.

This established the requisite nexus between the petitioner and the erstwhile consumer for purposes of Regulations 3.4.2 and 4.6.4, particularly because the new connection was sought for the same premises.

The Court rejected the limitation argument because Section 56 was held inapplicable to the petitioner in her capacity as an intending consumer.

It also rejected the assertion that the petitioner and her husband were no longer living together or had no continuing relationship, noting that the claim was unsupported by evidence and was inconsistent with the petitioner’s own affidavit and the jurat of the writ petition.

Accordingly, WBSEDCL’s insistence on payment was neither arbitrary nor without jurisdiction.

Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 did not protect the petitioner, as she was an intending consumer rather than the defaulting consumer.

The writ petition, WPA 19673 of 2026, was dismissed without costs.