SEKH MAHASIN PRIYANKA SAHA vs WBSEDCL AND ORS — WPA/9203/2026
Case under West Bengal Electricity Act ,2003 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0176432026
Next Hearing
27th April 2026
Filing Number
WPA/9076/2026
Filing Date
10-04-2026
Registration No
WPA/9203/2026
Registration Date
13-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Connection/Disconnection ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SEKH MAHASIN PRIYANKA SAHA
Respondent(s)
WBSEDCL AND ORS
THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER AND AREA MANAGER, BIRBHUM AREA OFFICE
THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND STATION MANAGER, ILLAMBAZAR CUSTOMER CARE CENTER
THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, ILLAMBAZAR POLICE STATION
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
NEW MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | NEW MOTION |
Orders
Summary: The High Court dismissed WPA 9203/2026 filed by Sekh Mahasin against WBSEDCL's provisional and final assessment bills for alleged illegal electricity theft. The court ruled the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner failed to utilize the statutory alternative remedy under the Electricity Act, 2003, the appeal period had expired under Section 127, and there was undue delay in approaching the court. The petitioner's attempt to revive a stale claim by bypassing statutory mechanisms was deemed untenable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The High Court dismissed WPA 9203/2026 filed by Sekh Mahasin against WBSEDCL's provisional and final assessment bills for alleged illegal electricity theft. The court ruled the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner failed to utilize the statutory alternative remedy under the Electricity Act, 2003, the appeal period had expired under Section 127, and there was undue delay in approaching the court. The petitioner's attempt to revive a stale claim by bypassing statutory mechanisms was deemed untenable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts