IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 34758 of 2010(T) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M.KRISHNADAS, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.M.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT MALAYIL HOUSE, KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI. P.A. HARISH SMT. RESMI NANDANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE-27. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, MANKAV, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOZHIKODE-27. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE-19. 4. THE SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-04. R1 TO R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B SRI. P. SANTHALINGAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 34758 of 2010(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 13.11.2009. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21.6.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. BB1/DM/2006-2007 DTD 7/10/2006 ISSUED BY K.S.E.BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34758 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land situated in R.S.No.221/B of Olavanna amsom desom of Kozhikode Taluk, Kozhikode District. He had obtained electricity connection to a shed situated therein, bearing Door No.10/570B with consumer No.13885 of Electrical Section, Pantheerankavu. The said building was occupied by Smt.G.P.Rema under a licence agreement dated 1.1.2005 executed by the petitioner, as per the terms of which the licencee was bound to pay the energy charges. When the licencee defaulted payment of the monthly licence fee, the petitioner instituted O.S.No.247 of 2007 in the Court of Munsiff of Kozhikode and obtained vacant possession of the building in execution of the decree passed therein on 26.9.2009. After the petitioner obtained vacant possession of the building, it was found that the electricity connection had been disconnected and dismantled. He made enquiries and then came to know that due to non payment of energy charges by the licencee for a long period of time, the electricity connection was disconnected and later dismantled. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 13.11.2009 to the third respondent requesting him to restore the electricity supply. The said request was not granted mainly for the W.P.(C) No.34758/2010 2 reason that the licencee who was running a small scale industrial unit in the shed had applied for an independent connection and had also executed a minimum guarantee agreement which resulted in a transformer being installed, but did not take further steps as a result of which the Board had to incur capital expenditure and unless the petitioner is willing to reimburse the expenses incurred by the Board and to pay the minimum guaranteed amount, the Board will not give a fresh electricity connection. It is in this background that the instant writ petition has been filed for an order directing the respondents to restore electricity connection to the petitioner's shed without insisting on any payment being made. 2. The Kerala State Electricity Board has filed a counter affidavit disputing the petitioner's entitlement for reconnection. It is contended that as the electricity supply was disconnected and later dismantled, the petitioner can get only fresh electicity connection in terms of sub-clause (5) of clause 41 of the Terms & Conditions of Supply, 2005. However, it is conceded in the counter affidavit that the past arrears in respect of the connection which was initially given to the petitioner in respect of the very same premises, to the tune of Rs.17,872/- was paid by the petitioner on 26.3.2007. It is also admitted that it was without the knowledge and consent of the W.P.(C) No.34758/2010 3 petitioner that Smt.G.P.Rema, the tenant, executed the minimum guarantee agreement with the Board. 3. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to apply for a fresh electricity connection, but the Board is insisting on production of the document of title in respect of the land where the building to which the connection sought is situated. The learned counsel further submitted that the document of title has been produced in O.S.No.247 of 2007 has not yet been received back. In my opinion, as the petitioner was a former consumer of the Board and the connection had been given to the very same premises after verifying his title to the property, the Board cannot insist that the petitioner should produce the document of title for getting a fresh connection. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary for this Court to decide whether the petitioner is liable to pay the amount which the Board is entitled to realise from Smt.G.P.Rema. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner applying for a fresh connection to the premises to which connection had been earlier given (Consumer No.13885 of Electrical Section, Pantheerankavu) and paying the W.P.(C) No.34758/2010 4 requisite fee and complying with all other formalities, the Board shall given fresh electricity connection, without insisting on production of the document of title in relation to the land where the building to which connection is sought is situate and without insisting on payment of the amount due from Smt.G.P.Rema. The new connection shall be given within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner applies for a fresh electricity connection. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.