IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19756 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.ABUBACKER, 49 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, POYIL HOUSE, RIPON ESTATE 4TH LANE RIPON PO., WAYANAD BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KSEB, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI B HAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. EXZECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KALPETTA 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, MEPPADI WAYANAD. 4. GENERAL MANAGER, PODDAR PLANTATION, RIPON ESTATE, RIPON PO., MEPPADI WAYANAD . ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI FOR R4 SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the minimum guarantee agreement executed on 7.11.1998 between respondents 2 and 4 Ext.P2. True copy of communication dated 24.9.2007 issued by the 3rd respondent to the Petitioner. Ext.P3. True copy of information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act dated 20.5.08 Ext.P4. True copy of the representation dated 12.6.08 submitted by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent. // true copy // P.A to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.19756 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the Ist day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is workman in the Ripon Estate under the 4th respondent. It is stated that to the quarter occupied by the petitioner, electricity was being supplied with consumer No.13331. The management committed default in paying the dues to respondents 1 and 2, as a result of which, supply of electricity was disconnected with effect from 2.12.2005. Recovery proceedings were also initiated and while so the management is stated to have paid the amount due, by Ext.P3. In the meanwhile, it would also appear that the supply was also dismantled on 3.6.2006. 2. Once the management paid the amount as per Ext.P3, representation was made by the petitioner for restoration of supply. Then the petitioner was informed that on payment of the dues request for reconnection could be WP(c).No.19756/08 2 considered. The case of the petitioner is that now that the amount due from the management has been paid as per Ext.P3, supply to his residential premises should be restored. Representation made for this purpose also did not evoke any response and it was therefore that this writ petition has been filed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in terms of the provisions contained in clause 25 and 26 of the Supply Code, once defaulted amount is paid the Board is liable to reconnect and restore the supply. On the other hand, the KSEB resist the contention. According the KSEB, apart from Ext.P1, the minimum guarantee agreement between the Board and the Management, there are separate agreements concerning each consumer number and that such individual agreement in so far as the supply to the petitioner's premises is concerned has been terminated. It is stated that in terms of clause 41(4) the supply has also been dismantled and therefore it is not possible to reconnect the supply as sought for by the WP(c).No.19756/08 3 petitioner. It is stated that, the remedy available to the petitioner in this situation is to apply for a fresh connection. It is also pointed out that even if he is not the owner, if the petitioner complies with the requirements of Regulation 14, he can seek supply of energy, in which case the Board shall consider the representation. 4. Going by clause 41(4) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, the Board is bound to dismantle the supply, within 6 months from the date of disconnection.. In this case, supply was disconnected on 2.12.2005 and it was therefore that the Board dismantled the supply on 3.6.2006. Once supply is dismantled as above, neither clauses 25 nor 26 or 41(4) provide for a restoration of supply and the course open to the petitioner is to make an application for fresh connection. In this case also having regard to the aforesaid facts, I am also inclined to agree with the counsel for the Board that the petitioner has to apply for fresh connection. However, counsel for the petitioner points out that he is at WP(c).No.19756/08 4 logger heads with the 4th respondent an therefore the 4th respondent may not grant consent for availing of supply to his residential premises. However, in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 14 of the Terms and Conditions of supply, 2005 the petitioner need not have such apprehension and therefore it will be open to the petitioner to make an application in terms of clause 14, in which case the respondents 1 to 3 shall consider the same and needful shall be done without delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.19756/08 5