IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2007 / 20TH PAUSHA 1928 RP.No. 1167 of 2006(P) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27231/2006 Dated 07/11/2006 .................... REVIEW IST RESPONDENT/ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.4 ----------------------------------------------------------- P.R.PRASANNAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, DEV NIVAS, S.N.PURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. M.B.SUMESH, S/O.BAVAN, MANAKKAMALIL HOUSE, CHALIKKAVATTOM KARA, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPD.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASST.EXE.ENGINEER, CENTRAL SECTION, POWER HOUSE ROAD, COCHIN-18. 4. ASST.ENGINEER, CENTRAL SECTION, POWER HOUSE ROAD, COCHIN-18. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB SRI.S.SHARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- R.P. NO. 1167 OF 2006 IN W.P.(C) NO.27231/2006-P ----------------------------------------- ORDER Heard. The petitioner's grievance is that he, who is the power of attorney holder of the landlord, under whom the writ petitioner is a tenant, has not been heard before the judgment was rendered by this Court. Further, it is pointed out that though notice was served on him, owing to illness he could not make arrangement for appearance in the case. So, the judgment was rendered without hearing him. Therefore, he prays for reviewing the judgment and restoring the Writ Petition to file. 2. The writ petitioner is admittedly a tenant. So, he is entitled to get power connection without the consent of the landlord, provided he complies with the requirements under Regulation 14(4) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Conditions of Supply, 2005. The direction issued by this Court in the judgment under review is only to take a decision on the application of the writ petitioner. Therefore, I find no necessity to review the judgment. But, it is ordered that the direction in the judgment will not affect the contentions Rp no.1167/2006 2 of both sides in the pending rent control proceedings. With this direction, the R.P is closed. 10th January, 2007. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/