IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 8278 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.MUHAMMED KUNHI,S/O. T.K.ANDRU, PARAPPALLY, BELOOR VILLAGE, P.O.,PULLOOR HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF.T.K. ABDULRAHIMAN, S/O. T.KHADAR, MOONNAM MILE, AMBALATHARA P.O. PULLOOR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD MAVUNGAL, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KASARAGOD. 3. SAJU THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS.M, THAYYENI, CHERUPUZHA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU,SC,KERALA FINANCIAL COR FOR R2 SC FOR R1 SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the power of attorney dated 27.2.2007. Ext.P2. True copy of the No Objection letter issued by the Forest Division Officer,. Ext.P3. True copy of the certificate issued by the District Industries Center, Kasaragode Ext.P4. True copy of the letter issued by the 2nd respondent to the Ist respondent. Ext.P5. True copy of the letter submitted by the petitioner to the Ist respondent. // true copy / P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.8278 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that, a saw mill belonging to the 3rd respondent mortgaged to it, was taken over by the 2nd respondent and was notified for sale. In the sale that was conducted, petitioner was the successful bidder and sale was confirmed in his favour. 2. It is stated that, there upon the petitioner applied to the first respondent for supplying electricity to the premises. However, that was declined by the first respondent, on the ground that, the 3rd respondent, the previous consumer, was in arrears and that unless that liability is discharged, there cannot be any supply of electrical energy to the premises in question. It was in these circumstances the petitioner approached this court praying for a direction to the respondents to provide energy to his WP(c).No.8278/08 2 premises, without insisting on payment of the 3rd respondent's dues. 3. In this writ petition, after hearing the parties, by order dated 11.3.2008, this court directed the petitioner to provisionally remit the arrears due and avail of supply of energy on that basis. It is stated that petitioner made payment as directed above and is being made supply of electrical energy. 4. In view of clause 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, the petitioner cannot be made liable for the arrears if any that is due from the previous consumer. If that be so, the petitioner cannot be made liable for the arrears of the previous consumer and electric connection to the premises of the petitioner could not have been denied on the aforesaid ground. 5. Now that on a provisional basis petitioner has made payment and supply has been resumed, it is directed that the supply given to the petitioner shall be regularized in his WP(c).No.8278/08 3 name, without making the petitioner liable for the arrears due from the 3rd respondent, the previous consumer. It is also directed that the amount remitted pursuant to the order dated 11.3.2008 shall be adjusted towards the future bills of the petitioner. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of respondent from realizing the arrears from who ever is responsible for the same. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/