IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 OP.No. 31153 of 1999(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NANIYIL KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O KUNHIKANNA, EZHILODE PO., CHERUTHAZHAM, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. MR. R.SHANKAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL SECTION, KUNHIMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE EXSECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRIC DIVISION, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR. P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No. 31153 of 1999 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 17th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to restore the electric connection to the consumer No. 4849 to the petitioner's premises which is a telephone booth to which connection was originally provided on 5.9.99. After providing the connection, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 show cause notice to the effect that the connection secured by the petitioner was on the basis of a false ownership certificate of the building. This was followed by the disconnection notice dated 12.11.99 as borne by Ext.P3. The sustainability of the action pursued by the Board is under challenge in this original petition. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the action pursued by the respondents is perfectly in conformity with the facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law and that the petitioner is not entitled to enjoy the connection on the basis of a false ownership certificate. It is also stated that the respondents have conducted an enquiry, which revealed that ownership certificate produced by the petitioner was not genuine as clearly stated in paragraph 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit. The petitioner has not been O.P. No. 31153 of 1999 : 2 : chosen to rebut the contentions contained in the counter affidavit, by filing any reply affidavit. 3. It is seen that an interim order was passed by this Court on 13.12.99 in CMP 53053 of 99 directing the respondents to provide electric connection to the premises. But the subsequent turn of events is not discernible. 4. There is no representation for the petitioner. As such, this Court is not in a position to deal with the sustainability of the merits involved. Accordingly this Original Petition is dismissed for default. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd