IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5021 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.R.MOHANAN MANAGING DIRECTOR,M.S.HOTELS MUNNAR (PVT) LTD A.M.ROAD, MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 004. 2. K.D.H.P.COMPANY (P) LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ENGINEERING MUNNAR PO, PIN 685 612. R1 ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 5021 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 17th February , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for similar reliefs as contained in Ext.P4 judgment. 2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a Private Limited Company which is running a Hotel in Munnar. It is stated that the petitioner's hotel is having two single phase electric connection as on date and the connected load of the Hotel Complex is more than 100 Kilo Watts, under which circumstance, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 application for HT connection. The application was rejected by the second respondent who is the licensee to provide necessary connection in the area, vide Ext.P3 stating that the request cannot be entertained in view of the status quo order which is applicable to the case in hand . 3. On going through the materials on record, it is seen that W.P.(C) No. 5021 OF 2010 2 the buildings in question are situated within 50 yards of Munnar River and that there was a verdict passed by a learned Single Judge to the effect that no connection could be provided to any such buildings, which however was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the matter is pending consideration before the Apex Court and a 'status quo' order had been passed. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent, on instruction, submits that the building of the petitioner is situated outside the purview of 50 yards from the Munnar River, but with regard to Sy. Nos in respect of the building in question, it still comes within the purview of the order of status quo. 5. However, this Court does not find it necessary to stall the entire proceedings in view of the earlier verdict passed in similar circumstances, as borne by Ext.P4, making it clear that supply of electric energy to the building in question shall not be construed to mean that the construction of the building in question stands legalized. Accordingly, the second respondent is W.P.(C) No. 5021 OF 2010 3 directed to provide necessary electric connection referred to in Ext.P1 application subject to the priority among the similarly situated persons, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that granting of such connection will not mean that the construction effected by the petitioner or others concerned stands legalized in any manner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk