Wayleave disputes obstructing electricity connections must be determined by the District Magistrate under the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.

Maya Singh, the petitioner in W.P.A. 18656 of 2026, sought an electricity connection at her residential premises.

Although the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (“WBSEDCL”) was willing in principle to provide the connection, it was unable to do so because of objections raised by private respondents, including Kalpana Bakshi.

Kalpana Bakshi, the petitioner in W.P.A. 20834 of 2026, raised a similar grievance, with the proposed electricity supply being obstructed by objections from private respondents, including Maya Singh’s husband.

The petitions consequently involved cross-objections concerning the proposed supply of electricity.

Pursuant to an earlier order, WBSEDCL conducted an inspection in the presence of the parties, but could not identify an alternative route for laying the electricity line that would avoid the objections.

The dispute therefore concerned the availability of an alternative route or wayleave for effecting electricity supply.

Sanjib Mondal also sought impleadment in W.P.A. 18656 of 2026 on the ground that erection of a pole might affect his land.

Whether the dispute regarding the alternative route or wayleave for laying an electricity line should be determined by the District Magistrate under the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.

Whether the District Magistrate should conduct or cause an inspection, hear all affected parties, and determine the appropriate alternative route for providing electricity connections to both petitioners.

Whether Sanjib Mondal could be impleaded as a party after disposal of the writ petition, and whether he could participate in the proceedings before the District Magistrate.

The Court applied the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, particularly Rule 3, under which the District Magistrate is an appropriate authority to address disputes concerning the exercise of powers by a licensee, including issues relating to the route or wayleave required for laying electricity lines.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice by directing that all parties be given notice and an opportunity to participate in the inspection proceedings, suggest alternative routes, receive the inspection report, and raise objections to it.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon.

The Court found that WBSEDCL was not refusing to supply electricity; rather, supply was being obstructed because the parties disputed the route through which the lines could be carried.

Since resolving the dispute required a factual determination regarding an alternative route or wayleave, the Court held that the matter was appropriately within the statutory domain of the District Magistrate under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.

To ensure a fair determination, the Court directed the District Magistrate to initiate proceedings upon receipt of the petitioners’ representations, conduct or arrange an inspection in the presence of all parties, consider their proposed alternative routes and objections, and pass a reasoned decision.

Although impleadment of Sanjib Mondal was not possible after disposal of the writ petition, the Court protected his interests by permitting him to participate in the proceedings before the District Magistrate.

The District Magistrate was directed to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law, after inspection and hearing all parties, within eight weeks of their submission, and to communicate a reasoned order within one week thereafter.

The District Magistrate was also directed to prescribe the time within which WBSEDCL would provide electricity through the alternative route determined by him.

CAN 1 of 2026 was not allowed because the writ petition had already been disposed of, but Sanjib Mondal was permitted to participate in the same proceedings before the District Magistrate after being informed of the representation filed by Maya Singh.