IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30108 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- ADV. SARACHANDRADAS D., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN UNNITHAN, 'KARTHIKA', PALAMAROOR, PRAMADAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI. P.HARIDAS SMT. S.SIKKY SMT. LIJI KUTTAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICIY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 686 645. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA 686 645. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, (ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER), KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA - 686 645. 5. RAJESH, SASTHANKOVIL MADOM, NEAR SASTHA TEMPLE, PATHANAMTHITTA 686 645. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SAJEEVKUMAR K. GOPAL, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- WP(C).No. 30108 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 13.01.2000 EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND SMT.SEETHA LAXMI AMMAL MOTHER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.10.2011. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.10.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.10.2011. EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.10.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.30108 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the11 th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner is a member of Pathanamthitta bar and his grievance is that his landlord-owner of the building where he is conducting his law office has cut-off the electricity supply to the room where he is conducting his law office. According to the petitioner eventhough he submitted Ext.P2 petition before the 3rd respondent Accommodation Controller, the Accommodation Controller has not issued any effective orders, apart from conducting a local inspection. Hence this Writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondents 1 to 4 to provide electric connection to the premises occupied by the petitioner under Ext.P1.” 2. If the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the 5th respondent Sri.Rajesh, his landlord are correct, the authority to grant relief under Section 13(3) of Act 1965 to the 4th respondent. The submission of Sri.P.Haridas was that pursuant to Ext.P2 petition (letter) submitted by the petitioner before the W.P(C) No.30108 of 2011 2 4th respondent, the 4th respondent conducted an inspection of the petitioner's office premises. It is not clear whether Ext.P2 has been taken by the 4th respondent on his file as a regular petition under Section 13 of Act 2 of 1965. If Ext.P2 has been so taken up as a regular A.C.P, the 4th respondent is bound to conduct an enquiry into Ext.P2 with notice to the 5th respondent landlord. If the 4th respondent is satisfied on the basis of preliminary enquiries conducted that the allegations in Ext.P2 are correct when under Section 13(3), the 4th respondent has power to issue interim orders also. 3. We are of the view that limited reliefs can be given to the petitioner in the following terms without causing any prejudice to the 4th respondent at this stage itself. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition issuing the following directions: i) If Ext.P2 filed by the petitioner before the 4th respondent is already registered by the 4th respondent as a regular petition under Section 13(3) of Act 2 of 1965, the 4th respondent will enquire into the same in accordance with law and pass final orders on the basis of the enquiry which is to be conducted with notice to the 5th respondent landlord. ii) We permit the petitioner to file an interlocutory W.P(C) No.30108 of 2011 3 application in the above ACP (if the same is already registered) seeking interim reconnection of the supply. If such an application is received, the 4th respondent will pass early orders on the same in accordance with law. Iii) If the 4th respondent is yet to register Ext.P2 as a regular petition under Section 13(3), the petitioner can file a regular petition under Section 13(3) arraying the 5th respondent as the respondent, within a period of seven days from today. iv) If a fresh petition is filed as above, the 5th respondent will expedite matters and will ensure that the same is disposed of in accordance with law without undue delay. v) It is open to the petitioner to seek interim reliefs in the prospective petition also. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab