IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33899 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, KALLARAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, SRP MARKET P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADVS. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER, SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MANAPPALY, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690 574. R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.33899 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 15th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a Low Tension consumer under tariff LT ID with consumer No.8096. For some time the said building was rented out and the tenant used the building for commercial purpose and hence the tariff was changed from domestic to commercial under LT VII A. The case of the petitioner is that as early as on 20.5.2007 the said tenant was evicted from the said building and the petitioner occupied the building and started residing there with his family. However, on 31.1.2007 an inspection was conducted in the residential building belonging to the petitioner and finding that the domestic connection was used for commercial purpose he was charged under the commercial tariff, that is under LT VII A. According to the petitioner, even thereafter he had continued to pay the bill issued to him under the commercial tariff. But, according to the learned standing counsel appearing for the Board the petitioner had failed to pay the bills drawn under the commercial tariff and that ultimately resulted in dismantling of the electric connection. Whatever be the circumstances that led to the dismantling of the said connection it is a fact that the connection to consumer No.8096 stood WP(C).No.33899/2010 2 dismantled. Even with respect to the date on which the said connection was dismantled there is dispute. According to the petitioner, the second respondent dismantled the power supply only on 8.4.2008 and the learned standing counsel for the Board submitted that it was dismantled as early as on 31.3.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner has approached the Consumer Redressal Forum and filed C.C.No.227 of 2009. In fact, the said petition also carried a prayer for issuance of a direction for reconnection of the electric supply. However, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction the said petition, viz., C.C.No.227 of 2009 was dismissed. In short, it is evident that it is after such an unsuccessful attempt before the Consumer Redressal Forum that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. The prayer in this writ petition is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the power supply provided to the petitioner with Consumer No.8096 of Electrical Section, Manappally and change the commercial tariff to domestic tariff forthwith. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned standing counsel submitted that if the petitioner is insisting for getting the reconnection, he has to comply with the formalities under Regulation 41(5) of the Kerala State Electricity WP(C).No.33899/2010 3 Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. It is further submitted that it will also be open to the petitioner to submit an application for fresh connection. The request of the petitioner either for reconnection or for fresh connection will be decided in accordance with the relevant provisions, it is submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation before the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if Ext.P5 is not sufficient for granting reconnection the petitioner will file a separate application in accordance with law for connection/re-connection. In view of the rival submissions this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- In case the petitioner submits an application for connection/re-connection, the second respondent shall take appropriate action thereon expeditiously, for the purpose of granting connection/re- connection, at any rate within a period of one month from its receipt. Needless to say that the petitioner has to comply with all formalities required therefor, in accordance with law. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS