IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 6213 of 2006(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUSY A.JOSEPH, PUTHENPARAMBIL, KUTTAPUZHA P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY VARGHESE SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., KALOOR, COCHIN. 2. R. RAJALAKSHMI, LADY QUEEN HOSTEL, CHEMMANY LINE, JOURNALIST ROAD, KALOOR. ADV. SRI.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the encumbrance certificate. Ext.P2. True copy of the bill dated 17.11.2004. Ext.P3. True copy of the rent deed dated 2.11.2004. Ext.P4. True copy of the letter dated 15.11.2005. Ext.P5. True copy of the demand and disconnection notice dated 19.11.2005. Ext.P6. True copy of the letter dated 12.12.2005. Ext.P7. True copy of the demand and connection notice dated 19.1.2006 Ext.P8. True copy of the letter dated 27.01.2006. Ext.P9. True copy of the notice dated 17.1.2006. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.6213 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that she had purchased a property with a building situated in Sy. No.256/3 in Elamkulam Village. It is stated that the building in question was leased out to the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3 leave agreement for 11 months, with effect from 2.11.2004. In terms of the agreement between the parties, the tenant was to the electricity bills. 2. It is stated that the tenant started a Ladies Hostel and as energy was consumed for commercial purposes, tariff was changed to LT VII-A. According to the petitioner default was committed by the tenant for consecutive three months and thereupon supply was disconnected. It is stated that the tenant there upon applied for an instalment facility, which was granted by the Board. The tenant did not make any payment and despite that lapse, supply was restored. Tenant enjoyed power supply but continued to WP(c).No.6213/06 2 commit default and this portion continued for the whole period of 11 months and the tenant shifted the premises only in October, 2005. It is stated that subsequently, notice was issued, demanding payment of Rs.49,334/-. That was not paid and hence supply was disconnected on 15.12.2005. Thereafter Ext.P7 was issued demanding Rs.63,612/-. Representations made by the petitioner contending that the tenant was liable to pay the amount did not evoke any response. Finally Ext.P9 notice was issued threatening to dismantle the electrical installation. It is at that stage, the writ petition is filed. 3. In the statement filed by the first respondent, Board states that till November, 2004 payments were made and default was committed for the period thereafter. It is stated that till 18.1.2006, the total amount due from the consumer was Rs.72,553/- and for non-payment of the dues, supply was disconnected on 15.12.2005. According to the Board, it is the consumer who is liable to pay the amount and if the consumer wants to have restoration of power supply, he should clear the arrears. WP(c).No.6213/06 3 4. Second respondent, the previous tenant filed a counter affidavit, where several allegations are raised against the land lord and her power of attorney holder. According to the 2nd respondent, she made several investments and money is due from the land lord. It is also contended that it was on account of difference of opinion with the power of attorney holder of the land lord that the default was committed. 5. Irrespective of the factual controversies between the parties, going by the counter affidavit filed by the Board, the consumer is one Kunjappan, who apparently is the transferor of the petitioner. Subsequent to the change of ownership, no notice as contemplated in clause 15(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electric Energy, was given. As far as the Board is concerned, going by the regulations it is the consumer who is liable and the Board cannot be expected to run after the tenants to realize the dues. If that be so, this court will not be justified in directing the Board to realize its dues from the 2nd respondent, who according to the petitioner was the tenant. Counsel for the petitioner has a case that it was on WP(c).No.6213/06 4 account of the collusion between the officers of the Board and the 2nd respondent that the arrears were allowed to be accumulated. If the petitioner has any such case, first of all he ought to have implead the concerned officer in his personal capacity in the writ petition. In this writ petition, though certain vague allegations have been made, the petitioner has not mentioned the name of the officer who allegedly colluded with the 2nd respondent nor has the petitioner impleaded such person. If that be so, this court will not be justified in acting upon the submissions made by the writ petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner claims restoration of power supply, Board will consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.6213/06 5