Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: February 7 To February 12, 2022

Judgments/Orders of the Week 1. 'Suffered Unnecessary Ignominy And Harassment': Calcutta HC Orders WBSEDCL To Pay Rs 6 Lakhs Compensation To Consumer For Unauthorised Disconnection Of Electricity SupplyCase Title: West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Sukanta Kumar Singha and AnrCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 30The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) to pay an amount to the tune of Rs.6,07,000 to a consumer for unauthorised disconnection of electricity supply due to which the consumer had suffered unnecessary harassment. Calling the conduct of WBSEDCL as 'deplorable', Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed, "In cases such as the present one, it is the gross laches of the Distribution Licensee which compelled the respondent no.1, a consumer, to suffer unnecessary ignominy and harassment..As far as the conduct of the Distribution Licensee in the present case is concerned, the same is deplorable and the consumer was compelled to run from pillar to post at every point of time." Accordingly, the Court directed, "Hence, there was no scope of reducing the total amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day, as calculated by the Ombudsman. Rather, in exercise of this court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order of the Ombudsman is modified to the effect that the Distribution Licensee shall pay compensation not to the tune of Rs.1,21,400/- as awarded but will pay a total amount of Rs.6,07,000/- to the consumer-respondent no.1 within a month from date, deducting any amount, if already paid pursuant to the impugned order of the Ombudsman."2. Married Daughter Who Became Widowed After The Death Of The Pensioner Is Not Entitled To Family Pension: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Union Of India and Others v. Ratna SarkarCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 31The Calcutta High Court observed that the benefit of family pension cannot be extended to a widowed daughter of a pensioner who was married at the time of the death of her father/mother. The Court held that a daughter who became widowed after the demise after her father/mother does not possess any fundamental or statutory right to claim family pension. The issue in consideration before a Bench comprising Justices Harish Tandon and Rabindranath Samanta was whether a daughter of a pensioner who was married, but became widowed after the death of the pensioner is entitled to family pension. Answering in the negative, the Court observed, "As the legislative intent is demonstrated, the scheme of family pension never included a daughter of a pensioner who was married at the time of the death of the pensioner..A daughter who became widowed after the demise after her father/mother does not possess any fundamental or statutory right to claim family pension. In the absence of any legislation in this regard, the benefit of family pension cannot be extended to a daughter of a family pensioner who was married at the time of the death of her father/mother. It will be unwise on the part of this Court to exercise its extraordinary or discretionary power to come to any inference contrary to the policy decision of the Government."3. Disclosure Of Identity Of Protected Witness Defeats The Purpose Of Section 44 (3) UAPA: Calcutta HC Orders Trial Court To Redact Name Of Protected WitnessCase Title: Surojit Mandal v. National Investigation Agency (NIA)Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 32The Calcutta High Court on Friday observed that Section 44 (3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) mandate Courts to undertake measures to protect the identity of a protected witness and accordingly directed the concerned Trial Court to to redact the name, address and other particulars of the protected witness from the records immediately. A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak noted that in the instant case, the statement of the protected witness recorded under Section 164 CrPC discloses his indignity. Opining that such disclosure of indignity defeats the provision of Section 44 (3) of the UAPA, the Bench observed, "Sub-section (3) of section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, inter alia, provides the measures which the court may undertake to protect the identity of a protected witness which includes avoiding to mention the name and address of the witness in its orders or judgment and any record of the case accessible to public. Statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the witnesss is required to be served upon the accused. Hence, disclosure of identity of the protected witness in such statement clearly defeats the purpose of the aforesaid provision of law." The Court further directed the Trial Court to exercise more caution in ensuring that the indignity of protected witnesses are not divulged. 4. Lacunae In Prosecution Case Due To Patent Contradictions Cannot Be Cured By Resorting To Statutory Presumption U/S...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: February 7 To February 12, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags