IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 27025 of 2008(P) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOBIN VARGHESE AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE,P.J.V.MARUTHI WORKSHOP, PALLIPURATH HOUSE,KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE,UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. JOSEPH @ KUTTIACHAN,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O.MATHAI, KAKKATTU HOUSE,PARAKKADAVU KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 2 SRI.JOICE GEORGE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.27025 OF 2008 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 22.10.06. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DATED 22.10.2006 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DATED 24.9.2007 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.147/2008 ALONG WITH I.A.NO.662/2008. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE KSEB ELECTRICITY BILL FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2008 AND PAYMENT RECEIPT OF THE BILL. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.6.2008. EXT.P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.8.2008 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND REPRESENTATION DATED 3.9.2008 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9PHOTO COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 25.6.2007. EXT.P10 PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.11.2006 BY THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER. EXT.P11 PHOTO COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7.11.2007 AND 21.5.2008 OF THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER. EXT.P12 PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.6.2007. EXT.P13 PHOTO COPY OF THE LICENCE DATD 13.6.2008. EXT.P14 PHOTO COPY OF THE FIR NO.754/2007 DATED 26.12.2007. EXT.P15 PHOTO COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 15.7.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MALAYALAM MANORAMA DAILY DATED 23.6.2008. EXT.RE(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MANGALAM DAILY DATED 23.6.2008. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 27025 OF 2008 P -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th November, 2008 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate direction or order prohibiting the 1st and 2nd respondents from disconnecting the existing electrical supply to the petitioner vide Consumer No.8918 in Building No.KP-12/687C of the Kattappana Grama Panchayath. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 1st and 2nd respondents that in the event of disconnection of the electricity supply, to give reconnection of the electricity supply immediately to the petitioner on the basis of Exts.P7 and P8 representations.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that the third respondent leased out an extent of 10 cents of land to the petitioner for conducting a Maruti Workshop. It is stated that the petitioner had purchased a Maruti Workshop building and WPC.27025/08 P 2 accessories from one Shri Renju in 2006 and the third respondent permitted the petitioner for conducting the workshop in the said premises let out to the petitioner for a ground rent of Rs.5,250/=. When the attempt was there to take forceful possession, a Suit was filed as OS No.147/08 before the Munsiff Court, Kattappana and an interim injunction was granted restraining the third respondent from forcefully evicting the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is paying all the Bills to the Authorities in time as per the agreement. It is stated that the petitioner has also filed Exts.P7 and P8 representations before the second respondent not to disconnect the electric supply and that in any event it is disconnected, the power supply may be restored immediately. 3. A Counter Affidavit is filed by the third respondent, denying the case of lease. It is stated that the property has been leased out only to Mr. Renju Sebastian and he had to vacate the property on 30.06.2008. But, the brother of the petitioner filed a Suit as OS No.147/08 before the Munsiff Court, Kattappana WPC.27025/08 P 3 against the third respondent and obtained an ex parte injunction order. It is stated that it does not give any right to the petitioner to trespass into the third respondent's property and continue there. 4. A Reply Affidavit is filed purporting to produce Ext.P9 electricity bill, Ext.P10 copy of the Notice from the Assistant Labour Officer, Ext.P11 Report of the Assistant Labour Officer, Ext.P12 notice of the Assistant Inspector of Factories, Ext.P13 copy of the licence, Ext.P14 copy of FIR and Ext.P15 Commission Report. Of course, the third respondent has produced, by an Affidavit, Exts.R3(a) and Ext.R3(b) which are Newspaper Reports. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the third respondent besides the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Electricity Board. 5. The case set up by the petitioner, of course, is that there is a lease. In this connection, he relies on documents which are allegedly executed only by the petitioner. There are other WPC.27025/08 P 4 documents also produced which I have referred to. The case of lease is stoutly denied by the third respondent. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I cannot possibly find that the petitioner is a lessee under the third respondent, and that is a matter which is to be ascertained in an appropriate Forum. The third respondent would contend that the petitioner has concocted the documents which are produced. He also refers to the Newspaper Reports produced to show that the petitioner has been jailed for concocting documents. 6. There is no receipt produced to show that the petitioner has paid rent to the third respondent. In fact, the third respondent denies receiving any rent. It would not be appropriate to enter a finding regarding the alleged tenancy. 7. Shri A.C. Devasia, learned counsel for petitioner would contend that having regard to Regulation 14(4) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, being an occupier, in the event of there being a disconnection, petitioner is entitled to get reconnection, even if there is no consent by the land owner. WPC.27025/08 P 5 8. Having considered the contentions, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: It is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum to establish the case of lease and seek appropriate orders. The interim order passed by this Court will continue for a period of two weeks from today. It is also ordered that in the event of there being disconnection, the second respondent will consider and take a decision on Ext.P8 with due notice to the petitioner and also the third respondent, within a period of three weeks from the date of disconnection. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.