IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8940 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.R.SANTHOSH, VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE, PALA P.O., PIN-686 575, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR. P.BABU KUMAR MR. P.YADHU KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMERCIAL & TARIFF K.S.E.B., VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PALA, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. MR. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B MR. C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB R3 AND R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 8940 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P1 notice issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to realize a total sum of Rs. 24,313/- plus interest and collection charges, which is stated as due in respect of the electricity connection provided by the respondents to the father of petitioner (consumer No.2492 of Pala division) for the period from October 2006 till July, 2007. 2. The learned counsel for he petitioner submits that, the father of petitioner was running a 'hotel' in the concerned building, which is a rented premise, after entering into the partnership with three other persons . The father of the petitioner took his last breath in the year 1986 and thereafter the business was being run by the remaining partners. In any view of the matter, the petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer, is not connected with the business or the building and further that the petitioner has not inherited any properties from the father. This being the position, the steps taken by the respondents causing the properties of the petitioner to be attached and sold is not correct or proper. The learned counsel adds that, despite the earnest efforts taken by the petitioner to have his grievances redressed by W.P. (C) No. 8940 of 2010 : 2 : approaching CDRF and also the Electricity Ombudsman, such attempts were turned futile, as borne by Exts. R4 and 5, wherein no finding on the fact has been arrived at, but for observing that the matter has to be adjudicated by a Civil Court. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board submits, with reference to the contents of the courter affidavit, that Ext.P3 certificate issued by the village officer only certifies that the deceased did not have any immovable property in the concerned village, which cannot rule out the chance for the deceased to have owned, possessed and enjoyed properties in other villages as well. 4. The issue to be considered is whether respondents are justified in proceeding against the properties of the petitioner, resorting to the steps under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, in respect of the dues, if any to be satisfied by the deceased father of the petitioner. True, there is a clause provided under regulation 19 (4) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 and also as provided in the agreement, stated as executed by the father of the deceased at the time of availing the connection, that the liability due to the Board will have the first charge. But the liability sought to be enforced as per Ext.P1 is in respect of the period from October 2006 to July 2007. There is no denial of the factual position in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Board that the father of the petitioner W.P. (C) No. 8940 of 2010 : 3 : bid farewell to the world in the year 1986. This being the position, the admitted liability being for the period from October 2006 to July 2007, was not incured by the deceased father in his life time. There is also no case for the respondents that the connection is being enjoyed by the petitioner who is a lawyer. Similarly, the respondents 1 and 2 have not rebutted the specific contention of the petitioner that he has not inherited any property from the deceased. There is no case for the respondents 1 and 2 that the deceased father of the petitioner owned immovable property in some or other village. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions made from the part of the petitioner and as such, it is declared that the respondents are not entitled to pursue Ext.P1 against the petitioner or his properties. It is also made clear that, this will not bar the way of the respondents from proceeding against the properties of the actual defaulter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd