IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26453 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., N.H.BYPASS, MARADU.P.O., KUNDANOOR, KOCHI REP. BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED MANAGER PREMKRISHNAN NAIR.M.N. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION KRALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26453 of 2009(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE KSEB FOR ENERGIZING THE TOWER DATED 19.07.2008. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION DATED 29.08.2008. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT STATING DISCONNECTION OF THE SERVICE CONNECTION DATED 01.08.2009. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.05.2009 EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 11.9.09 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 26453 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in threatening disconnection of electricity supply to the mobile tower erected by the petitioner, on the ground that the tower has been erected unauthorisedly as per the report from the Kollam Corporation. The counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for regularisation of the construction, filed under Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules has been rejected, against which the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and obtained interim orders staying further proceedings against the tower. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the respondents not to disconnect electricity supply to the tower. 2. I have heard both sides. 3. I am of opinion that as long as the stay order of the Tribunal is in force, the respondents would not be justified and disconnecting electricity supply to the tower. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to disconnect the W.P(C) No. 26453 of 2009 -2- electricity supply to the petitioner's mobile tower as long as the stay granted by the Tribunal is in force. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs