IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37375 of 2010(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SARASWATHY, W/O. RAMAR, RESIDING AT IX/3442, IKKA NAGAR, MUNNAR, MUNNAR.P.O., PIN-685 612. 2. K.SAHADEVAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.IX/1869, IKKA NAGAR, MUNNAR, MUNNAR.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, REGIONAL OFFICE, MUNNAR.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 612. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RA), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PALLIVASAL EXTENSION SCHEME, MUNNAR DIVISION, MUNNAR.P.O., PIN-685 612. R1 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R2 BY ADV. SRI. MATHEW K.UTHUPPACHAN R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.37375 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 22nd December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners who are permanent residents of Munnar applied for power connection to the second respondent who is the agent of the first respondent Board in the matter of distribution and maintenance of power supply in Munnar area. This writ petition has been filed feeling aggrieved by the inordinate delay in the matter of granting power connection to their residential buildings bearing Nos. IX/3442 A and IX/1869 of Munnar Grama Panchayat. It is prayed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to afford electric connection to their homes without insisting compliance with the unjustifiable formalities, as demanded in Exts.P6 and P7. As per Exts.P6 and P7 the petitioners were required to produce No Objection Certificate from the first respondent Board. According to the petitioners, there is absolutely no reason or justification for requiring the petitioners to comply with such formalities for granting service connection. The petitioners rely on Ext.P12 judgment to substantiate their claim for service connection. It is common case that in SLP(C)No.11582/2007 the Hon'ble Apex Court ordered to maintain status quo with respect to the construction on the WP(C).No.37375/2010 2 river banks. There is no prohibition for granting of power connection. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is agent of the first respondent in the matter of distribution and maintenance of power supply in Munnar area and therefore, competent to grant electric connection subject to satisfaction of the prescribed formalities by the concerned applicant. When an application is submitted for power connection to the second respondent who is the licencee for power supply in Munnar area, the second respondent is bound to consider the same in accordance with the provisions and to take a decision with respect to the said request. 2. This Court has earlier considered an identical issue as per Ext.P12 judgment whereby, after observing that supply of electric energy to the buildings concerned would not and could not mean legalization of the construction of the building, directions were issued to provide electric connection to the concerned prospective consumers, if they are otherwise eligible. In this case, as is obvious from Exts.P6 and P7, the insistence is of production of No Objection Certificate from the first respondent Board on the ground that the buildings in question fall under KSEB land survey. I am of the considered view that the same reasoning would apply in this case well. Granting electric connection to the residential buildings belonging to the petitioners would not and could not legalise their occupation or constructions thereon if they are illegal. It will not in any WP(C).No.37375/2010 3 way confer any particular right to the petitioners. Now a days, no one can contend that electric connection to a building is a luxury. It will only aid them to live in a decent and healthy atmosphere. In the circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition as hereunder:- In case the petitioners have produced all the other required documents and complied with all statutory formalities the second respondent shall grant power connection to the petitioners' buildings in case they are otherwise eligible, as expeditiously as possible subject, of course, to the order of priority in the category to which they belong. It is made clear that this order will not confer any right on the petitioners and will legalise the occupation of the properties in question and also the constructions thereon, if they are otherwise illegal. In case any action has been initiated by the first respondent Board or Government for illegal construction or occupation, the receipt of electric connection based on this judgment shall not be assigned and accepted as a ground of defence. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge