IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16945 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.V.HARIS, S/O.ABDULRAHIMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KURIKKADA HOUSE, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL, KUZHAKKUNU, VILAKODE PO,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY VIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.E.B, KALPETTA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER K.S.E.B, ELECTRIC SECTION, PULPALLY. 4. DAMODARAN K, S/O.NARAYANAN KUTHINAPPURATH HOUSE, VELLAKETTU, PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM, SULTHANBATHERY P.O, PIN-673592 STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16945 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a tenant in the building belonging to the 4th respondent has approached this Court against the delay on the part of the other respondents in providing temporary electric connection to the shop of the petitioner, bearing No. PP-5/689 of Pulppally village despite submitting Ext.P6 application in this regard. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering Ext.P6 is only at the instance of the 4th respondent/landlord. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is occupying the premises from 1990 and that the attempt of the 4th respondent is only to oust the petitioner from the premises indirectly. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the averment of the petitioner that Ext.P6 application has been preferred before the respondents is not correct and that the respondent Board is ready and willing to consider the request if necessary application is filed by the petitioner, complying with the statutory formalities in accordance with Regulation 14 (4). 4. In view of the limited nature of the relief prayed for, and 2 WP(C) No. 16945/2010 proposed to be given and also the stand revealed by the respondents 1 to 3, this Court does not find it necessary to issue any notice to the 4th respondent who is stated as the landlord of the premises in question. 5. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6 application produced along with this Writ Petition and give necessary instruction to the petitioner as to the requirements to be satisfied within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the intimation, the petitioner shall comply with the requirements in accordance with law within a further period of one week thereafter. On satisfying the requirements, the matter shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed so as to give necessary connection to the petitioner in accordance with law within a further period of two weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc