IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 24831 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- V.GOKULAN S/O. LATE K.A.VAMANA PAI AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDNG AT GOKUL NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION CENTRAL, POWER HOUSE ROAD, KOCHI-682018,ERNAKULAM. 3. VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS HUTCHISON ESSAR CELLULAR LTD., ASHISH BUILDING, KOCHI-682031, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, LEGAL. 4. V.GOPI, S/O. LATE K.A.VAMANA PAI, GOPI NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD,KOTTAYAM - 686 001 5. VASANTHAKUMARI, W/O. LATE V. KUMAR KUMAR NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001 6. K.SREEKANTH S/O. LATE V.KUMAR, KUMAR NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001 7. MAYA.V.KUMAR, D/O. LATE V.KUMAR KUMAR NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001 8. K.SREEKESH, S/O. LATE. V.KUMAR, KUMAR NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001 9. TH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM. 10. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN ERNAKULAM-682011. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADVS. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 2 MR. S.RAMESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 24831 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent holding that the electricity connection given to the 3rd respondent need not be disconnected on the ground that the 4th respondent is the person entitled to title over the building in question. That order was passed on a request made by the petitioner to 2nd respondent seeking to disconnect the electricity connection on the ground that although the petitioner was a co- owner of the property, his consent was not obtained for erecting the mobile tower therein. The electricity connection was given to a mobile tower constructed by the 3rd respondent in the property in question. There are very serious disputes among the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8 in respect of title to the property. Several civil and criminal cases are pending in respect thereof. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a co- owner of the property along with respondents 4 to 8. Admittedly, the mobile tower has been erected obtaining consent W.P(C) No. 24831 of 2009 -2- of 4th respondent alone. According to the petitioner, in so far as all of them were co-owners of the property, the consent of all of them including that of the petitioner should have been obtained before giving permission to the 3rd respondent to erect mobile tower in the building in question, which is jointly owned by the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8. The petitioner therefore submits that the 2nd respondent could not have validly decided the question of title in respect of the property holding that the 4th respondent has absolute title to the entire part of the building wherein the mobile tower has been erected and on that finding it should not have been held that the electricity connection need not be disconnected. 2. After hearing, I am satisfied about one thing. The 2nd respondent ought not have decided the question of title as between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8 especially since disputes regarding title are pending before the civil and criminal courts in respect of the same. But I do not think that the ultimate conclusion is wrong. When the question of title itself is in dispute, the petitioner cannot now seek disconnection of electricity supply at this point of time. In so far as presently the W.P(C) No. 24831 of 2009 -3- mobile tower cannot be permitted to be demolished, he would also not be benefitted from disconnecting the supply to the mobile tower. Therefore it is only appropriate that the question of disconnection of electricity supply to the mobile tower be deferred until some competent court enters a finding regarding the title to the property as between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8. Therefore on the question of disconnection of electricity supply to the mobile tower to the 3rd respondent, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, I make it clear that the observation regarding title to the property made by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P6 in favour of the 4th respondent shall not be used for any other purpose except for the purpose of deciding disconnection of electricity or continuing supply of electricity to the mobile tower of the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs