IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36362 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ASST. SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT THRISSUR CORPORATION. 2. THRISSUR CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 3. ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY WING, THRISSUR CORPORATION. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. A.P.CHERIYAN, ALENGATTU MANAVALAN HOUSE, AVENUE ROAD, 5TH AVENUE, THRISSUR. 2. ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, P.O.MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL FORUM , THRISSUR.P.O., THRISSUR-3. R1 BY SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF R2 AND R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010 ALONG WITH W.P.(C) 384 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE OLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36362 of 2009(M) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS; EXT.P1 l: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER D ATED 01.10.1993 IN I.A..955 OF 2009 IN CC.C 652 OF 2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COPY OF THE REGISTERED POSTAL COVER. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS IN I.A.N 955 OF 2009 IN C.C. 652 OF 2009 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT BY THE 4THR ESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF C.C. 652 OF 2009DATED 19.09.2009 9IN THE FILE OF the 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF I.A. 955/09 AND AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.09.09 FILED IN SUPPORT THERETO IN THE FILE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. KSERC/II/LICENCE/2009 DATED 16.12.2008 OF KERALA STATE ELELCTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION ADDRESSED TO THE MAYOR OF THRISSUR CORPORATION. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 64 DATED 09.06.09 OF THE THRISSUR COPROATION COUNCIL MEETING TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT TO BE EX ECUTED BETWEEN THE KSEB AND THRISSUR COPORATION. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AE/III/FEED BACK POING /09- 10/1214 DATED 13.07.09. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT FILED AS I.A. 978/09 IN C.C. 652/09 FILED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER ELECLTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, MANNUTHY ALONG WITH COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN EXHIBIT P4 PETITION DA TED 07.12.2009. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE WRIOT PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 09.1.2.2009 PRAYING TO ADVANCE THE HEARING OF THE MATTER TO 09.12.09 AND TO CANCEL THE ARREST WARRANT. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.12.09 SWORN BY ADV. JOHNSON T. THOMAS, THE COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE WRIT PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 & 384 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in both these Writ Petitions rather centres round on non-providing necessary electric connection to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 384 of 2010, allegedly because of the dispute between the KSEB and the Thrissur Municipal Corporation, particularly as to who is the actual person to provide necessary connection to the petitioner/('consumer' in short). 2. The consumer constructed a building and submitted application for connection before the Corporation who was stated as the concerned licensee in the area to provide the service connection under OYEC scheme. But the Corporation refused to accept the same, stating that the area where the building is situated was in Vilvattom Panchayath, which does not come W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 & 384 OF 2010 2 within the jurisdiction of the Corporation and that it is for the KSEB to provide the electric connection in the said area. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed application before the third respondent for getting connection and remitted the prescribed fees as evidenced by Exts. P1 to P3. Despite the collection of the requisite amount, as stipulated by the Board, the connection was not given in view of the dispute between the KSEB and the Corporation as to who was the actual person to provide necessary connection. The consumer was constrained to approach the CDRF, Thrissur by filing C.C.No. 652 of 2009, wherein an order was passed, directing the Corporation to provide connection to the consumer. Since the Corporation did not choose to implement the same, the consumer filed further proceedings so as to get it executed, in the course of which, the CDRF passed an order of arrest and detention of the concerned officers of the Corporation, which in turn is subjected to challenge by the Corporation and the officers concerned in W.P. (C) No. 36362 of 2009, wherein further proceedings have been W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 & 384 OF 2010 3 intercepted by this Court, as per the interim order dated 16.12.2009. It is in the said circumstances, that the consumer has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.384 of 2010 seeking for appropriate reliefs. 3. The respondent Board has filed a statement, while the Corporation has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No. 384 of 2010. The learned Counsel for the consumer(petitioner in WP(C) 384 of 2010) submits, with reference to Exts. P5 and P6 proceedings in the other case, that as per the letter issued by the Regulatory Commission vide Ext. P5, if at all the concerned licensee/service provider is not having any infrastructure to provide necessary connection to the concerned building situated in the area and if any other licensee in the nearby area is having such facility, the connection can be provided to the beneficiary, making use of such facility of the nearby licensee, after entering into necessary agreement between the licensee and the Board. It was pursuant to Ext. P5 that Ext. P6 resolution was passed by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation, who is the licensee of the W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 & 384 OF 2010 4 nearby area, to provide connection to the consumer in the nearby/adjoining area, which however comes within the area and jurisdiction of the Board, provided necessary agreements are executed by the Board in this regard and that the draft agreement prepared in this regard has been approved accordingly. The learned Counsel for the consumer submits that, despite Exts.P5 and P6, proceedings are still to be finalised and the respondent Board and the Municipal Corporation are simply playing 'hide and seek' game, insinuating each other. 4. It is very much evident from the contents of the statement filed by the KSEB that they have conceded that the area in question where the building of the consumer is situated comes very much within the jurisdiction of the Board and not within the area of the Corporation of Thrissur. In view of the factual position stated as above, it is equally for both the KSEB and the Municipal Corporation, Thrissur, to provide the connection to the consumer, in the light of Ext P5, of course after making proper agreement with regard to the supply, to be W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 & 384 OF 2010 5 routed through the KSEB. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.384 of 2010 also submits that the petitioner does not intend to enforce the order passed by the CDRF causing arrest and detention of the officers of the Corporation and that the petitioner is only anxious about the connection to be provided to the petitioner . It is further brought to the notice of this Court that orders have been passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No.27963 of 2009 (as borne by Ext.P5 in WP(C) 384 of 2010) directing the Corporation to provide necessary electric connection. But taking note of the specific averments raised by the Corporation in the counter affidavit filed from their side and also taking note of the contents of Exts. P5 and P6 in W.P.(C)No. 36362 of 2009, this Court finds that an agreement has to be executed between the Board and the Corporation on the basis of Ext. P5 letter issued by the Regulatory Commission and Ext.P6 resolution passed by the Corporation, so as to route the electric energy through the KSEB, making use of infrastructure available to the Corporation in the area, and to give necessary W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 & 384 OF 2010 6 connection to the consumer. 5. With regard to the submission made from the part of the Board as to the necessity to install 'two meters' in the premises of the petitioner so as to protect the interest of the Board as well, against the claims if at all to be raised from the part of the Corporation in the due course, this is purely a matter between the Board and the Corporation and the proceedings in this regard shall not deter or delay in providing necessary connection to the consumer, which shall be finalised after executing necessary agreement between the Board and the Corporation immediateely. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court directs both the KSE Board and the Municipal Corporation, Thrissur to finalise the steps for executing the agreement between the Board and the Corporation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and provide necessary connection to the petitioner in WP(C) 384 of 2010 making use of the infrastructure available to W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 & 384 OF 2010 7 the Corporation in the area within a further period of one week thereafter. The consumer (petitioner in WP(C) 384 of 2010) shall comply with the statutory formalities, if any, including payment of all necessary charges as and when demanded by the Board or the Corporation, as the case may be. 7. In the above circumstances, the issue is set at rest on consensus and no further proceedings need be pursued on the basis of Ext. P1 in WP(C) 36362 of 2009; the same having been remedied otherwise, as stated above. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk