IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 8750 of 2007(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N.D.JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, M/S.TEMCO FUELS, A.C.ROAD, PANACHIKKAVU P.O., POOVAM WEST, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADVS. MR.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN MR. DILEEPAN SMT.P.SUMITHRA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, KSEB, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, PUNCHA SECTION, KIDANGARA. ADDL. R4 - DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), KANNAYANUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R4 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 25/2/2008 IN I.A. NO. 2324 OF 2008. BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 8750 of 2007 ................................................. Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for an electricity connection to his petrol bunk. Originally he applied for a temporary connection, which was granted. He sought extension of the temporary connection which was extended from time to time till 28.2.2007. The petitioner submitted an application for regular connection and remitted application fee since the 3rd respondent allegedly assured to grant regular connection within two days of expiry of the temporary connection. However, the 3rd respondent refused to give the petitioner regular connection. The petitioner requested for reinstating the temporary connection if there is delay in granting regular connection. Subsequently, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of unconnected minimum charges as per the minimum guarantee agreement. According to the petitioner, he is not liable to pay any minimum guarantee amount since at no point of time the respondents had expressed their willingness to grant him electricity connection. After hearing the writ petition for W.P(C) No. 8750 of 2007 -2- sometime, on 29.6.2009, I passed the following order: “After hearing the writ petition for some time, this Court had suggested that since the Court is prima facie of the view that both the petitioner as well as the respondents equally contributed to the imbroglio leading to the writ petition, the Electricity Board should find out a practical solution for giving electricity connection to the petitioner's petrol pump. I had granted the respondents one week's time for this purpose on 24.6.2009. Learned Counsel for the Electricity Board now submits that since a decision in this regard cannot be taken by respondents 2 and 3, the matter has been referred to the Secretary of the Board and the respondents seek some more time to take a decision on the same. Post after two weeks.” 2. Subsequently on 10.8.2009, the learned standing counsel for the Board submitted before me that the Board is prepared to waive the unconnected minimum charges payable by the petitioner for giving permanent connection to the petitioner as requested by him. Accordingly, I directed the competent among the respondents to issue, within one week, a communication to the petitioner in that regard. Today, the counsel for the petitioner submits that he has received a connection and connection was effected on 17.8.2009. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, nothing remains to be done in the writ petition except to direct the board to withdraw the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against W.P(C) No. 8750 of 2007 -3- the petitioner in respect of the unconnected minimum guaranteed amount. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is closed with a direction to the respondents to withdraw the revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the unconnected minimum guaranteed amount. The additional 4th respondent shall not take any further steps in respect of the said amounts pursuant to the requisition earlier made by the respondents 1 to 3. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs