IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 11026 of 2005(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR.G.SADASIVAN NAIR, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, CUSAT, RESIDING AT PRATHEEKHA, UNIVERSITY, THRIKKAKARA TEMPLE ROAD, COCHIN UNIVERSITY PO, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ALUVA. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CHENGAMANADU DIVISION, CHENGAMANADU. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, CIVIL LINES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *6. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK. *7. VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, THRIKKAKARA. (*IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R6 & R7 AS PER ORDER DATED 19/07/2005 IN IA NO.9815/2005) BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 11026/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.37/86/POWER DATED 26/03/1986 ISSUED BY R1. P2 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23/05/1986 SUBMITTED BEFORE R4. P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18/11/1994 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R4. P4 : COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM I DATED 16/10/2004 ISSUED BY R2 TO PETITIONER. P5 : COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 15/03/2005 SUBMITTED BY PETIITONER BEFORE R2 & R3. P6 : COPIES OF POSTAL RECEIPTS SHOWING TRANSIT OF P5 TO R2 & R3. P7 : COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 20/03/2005 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R5. P8 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 27/06/2005 ISSUED BY ADDL.R7. P9 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.AB/REV//04/05/2187 DATED 24/06/05 ISSUED BY R3. P10 : COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SHOWING RECEIPT OF INTERIM ORDER BY R3. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 11026 of 2005 ------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of electricity dues in respect of agricultural connection taken in 1986. Arrears sought to be recovered is Rs.9,531/-. Petitioner’s case is that the property is sold to a person though he is not made a party in the writ petition. There has been considerable delay in demand and initiation of proceedings for recovery of arrears of electricity dues, which caused the whole problem. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the sale of property was communicated to the KSE Board for changing the connection in the name of the purchaser, or for disconnection, if the purchaser does not desire to retain the connection. In view of this contention, I feel, a local enquiry has to be conducted by 4th respondent and arrears should be demanded and recovered for consumption up to date of sale from petitioner and thereafter from purchaser as he enjoyed the connection. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing 4th respondent to conduct local inspection with the participation of the purchaser, the present owner of the property, and issue detailed order stating the nature of demand and bifurcation of WP(C) No. 11026/2005 -2- liability on petitioner, up to date of sale, and thereafter on the purchaser. Recovery should be made in terms of 4th respondent’s order so passed. There will be direction to 4th respondent to change the connection in the name of the purchaser to avoid future problem and if the purchaser does not want to retain the connection, to disconnect the supply. There will be direction to recovery authorities to withhold recovery against the petitioner for three months from now for settlement of liability as above. As and when revised demand is issued by 4th respondent as above, he will recall the present demand. Fourth respondent should consider the case of petitioner or the purchaser, as the case may be, about the claim of exemption, if any, for concessional tariff for agricultural connection. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg