SHRI.P.ARUMUGAM KMB JAYAPAL vs THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (HQ) AND ANR — WPA /125/2026

Case under Electricity Act ,2003 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 23rd March 2026.

CNR: WBCHCP0003052026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

17th March 2026

Filing Number

WPA /125/2026

Filing Date

16-03-2026

Registration No

WPA /125/2026

Registration Date

16-03-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE(DAS)

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE(DAS)

Bench Type

SINGLE BENCH

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

Connection/Disconnection ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Electricity Act ,2003 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

SHRI.P.ARUMUGAM KMB JAYAPAL

Respondent(s)

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (HQ) AND ANR

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE(DAS)

17-03-2026

NEW MOTION

23-03-2026

ELECTRICITY MATTER

20-03-2026

ELECTRICITY MATTER

Orders

23-03-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE(DAS)

The High Court at Calcutta (Port Blair Circuit) disposed of the writ petition by directing the electricity authority to decide the petitioner's pending electricity connection application within two weeks after giving him a hearing. The court held that the 2+ year delay in processing the application constituted arbitrary inaction and that electricity is essential for dignified living and cannot be indefinitely withheld, though it left the eligibility determination to the authority's reasoned decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court at Calcutta (Port Blair Circuit) disposed of the writ petition by directing the electricity authority to decide the petitioner's pending electricity connection application within two weeks after giving him a hearing. The court held that the 2+ year delay in processing the application constituted arbitrary inaction and that electricity is essential for dignified living and cannot be indefinitely withheld, though it left the eligibility determination to the authority's reasoned decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case