IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10230 of 2008(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- RAJU SAMUEL,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL, ENNASSERIL VEEDU, CHANDANAPALLI MURI, ANGADICKAL MURI, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ, SRI.B.BALRAJ, SRI.SAJJU.S. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, KAIPPATTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANGADICKAL, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008,ALONG WITH W.P(C) NO. 9459/2006,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.10230 of 2008-P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was the owner of an item of property in which he had availed supply of electrical energy. After disconnection and dismantling the supply, the petitioner sold the property to another. There is a civil suit and appeals there-from pending before the civil courts as between the petitioner and the Kerala State Electricity Board as to the sustainability of some of the demands. As of now, the Petitioner is desirous of ensuring that his vendee gets supply of energy. Having regard to the dispute between the parties, it is directed that if the petitioner or his vendee pays to the KSE Board all amounts as are WP(C)10230/2008 -: 2 :- demanded by the Board provisionally and without prejudice to the contentions in the civil suit, the application of the vendee of the Petitioner for a fresh connection shall be considered in accordance with law and supply given. In arriving at the amounts that the petitioner or the vendee may pay towards arrears, the security deposit amount shall be deducted. It is clarified that the question as to any liability by the Board to pay interest on the security deposit amount is left open for consideration in appropriate proceedings. The fourth respondent Village Officer will consider the application of the petitioner or his vendee, as the case may be, for effective mutation and render a final decision on the application for mutation within an outer limit of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/090408