IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22036 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KOCHAPPU MARTIN, MOOLAN HOUSE, ANAPPARA P.O., PIN 683 586. VIA, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, THURAVOOR- 683 586 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KSEB, PERUBAVOOR. 3. THE SECRETARY, THURAVOOR, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THURAVOOR, R1 ANDS R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No.22036 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 4th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was provided with an electric connection (consumer No. 6033) by the first respondent and he was enjoying the benefit for quite long. However, as per Ext. P1 notice issued by the Board, the petitioner was directed to submit explanation if any, as to why the connection shall not be dismantled ( pursuant to the objection raised in the complaint stated as filed by somebody), stating that the ownership certificate produced by the petitioner was not genuine. In response to the said notice dated 27.07.2009, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 reply on 31.07.2009. Within '24 hours' of the receipt of the said explanation, the respondent Board issued Ext.P4 notice on the next day, alerting the petitioner that the factual position conveyed by him vide his explanation was not acceptable and that in view of the subsistence of the dispute, if W.P.(C) No.22036 OF 2009 2 the petitioner wanted to submit any additional explanation, the same was to be preferred within three days, lest, the connection should be cut off without any further notice. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action pursued by the Board is only because of some personal animosity between the petitioner and some other persons of the locality and also by virtue of the alleged political influence and extraneous consideration exerted by such persons, which however, is sought to be rebutted from the part of the respondents through the Standing Counsel. 3. However, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not propose to go into the merits or demerits of the issue projected in the Writ Petition. The first respondent is hereby directed to consider Ext. P1 to P4 proceedings and the additional reply , if any, to be submitted by the petitioner, within ten days from today and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties, if any. The proceedings, as above, shall be finalised as expeditiously as W.P.(C) No.22036 OF 2009 3 possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is also made clear that till such orders are passed, the proposal to effect disconnection of the supply shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk