IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22048 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD., SEOND FLOOR, MERCY ESTATE, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-682 015, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, SRI RAMACHANDRAN.C. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DY.CHIEF ENGINEER, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE- 673011. 2. THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B.(CENTRAL), KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.22048 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a High Tension consumer of the Kerala State Electricity Board. They executed Ext.P1 agreement with the respondents, for supply of electrical energy. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, petitioner was allocated 90 KVA of power and the petitioner had installed a transformer with a capacity of 200 KVA. 2. Subsequently, it would appear that the petitioner had installed a transformer with 315 KVA capacity, which according to the petitioner was based on Ext.P5 approval granted by the Chief Electrical Inspector. It is stated by the petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P5, they applied for additional allocation of 160 KVA. 3. However, without obtaining approval of the Board, the installation of transformer was completed and that lead WP(c).No.22048/09 2 to the issuance of Exts.P10 and P14. It is stated that following Ext.P14, power supply to the transformer in question was disconnected and that lead the petitioner to file this writ petition. 4. Along with I.A.No.10020/2009, counsel for the petitioner produced Exts.P15 to P17. Counsel submits that in view of Ext.P14, they have removed the 315 KVA transformer and reinstalled the earlier transformer with 200 KVA. According to the petitioner, the Electrical Inspector has also granted temporary sanction under Rule 63 for energizing the transformer with 200 KVA. It is stated that immediately on receipt of the said order, they have filed Ext.P17 application before the first respondent, requesting to do the needful for energizing the transformer and reinstate the service connection. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. According to the respondents, the installation of the transformer with 315 KVA was without prior approval of the WP(c).No.22048/09 3 Board and the petitioner has also not applied for regularization of the installation. In so far as Ext.P17 request made by the petitioner for energizing the 200 KVA transformer is concerned, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on instruction submits that, unless the petitioner removes the same unauthorised installation or regularizing the said installation, the respondents cannot restore power supply. This submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is contradicted by the counsel for the petitioner, who contends that the installation in place is the one which they had installed at the time when 200 KVA was installed. 6. In view of Ext.P17 request made by the petitioner for restoring the power supply, what stands in the way of the Board is the presence of the installation with a higher capacity and the Board wants the same to be removed. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that installation is the same as the one which was installed by them at the time when 200 KV transformer was installed. Taking into this disputed WP(c).No.22048/09 4 question, which cannot be resolved in a writ petition, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. I direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P17, inspect the installation of the petitioner and on instruction, if he satisfied that the installation of the petitioner available at the site was the one installed at the time when 200KV transformer was available, the respondent shall take necessary steps for restoration of the supply, subject to usual conditions that are imposed by them. This shall be done at any rate, within 7 days from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.22048/09 5