IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31515 of 2006(B) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MUSTHAFA, AGED 37, S/O.ABOOBACKERKUTTY, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, PUTHERICKAL, PARAPPANANGADI DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SMT.THANKOM.G RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ELECTRICITY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ASST.ENGINEER, KSEB, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUVA VILLAGE, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN R2 TO R4 BY P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.31515 OF 2006 B PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 18.11.2003 EXECUTED BY JAMEELA, THE VENDOR, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.12964/2004 WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF ON 11.01.2005 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P3TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2005 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO EXT.P2 JUDGMENT. EXT.P4TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. EXT.P5TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE FOR T4HE BUILDING ON 19.08.2005. EXT.P6TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ON 22.08.2005. EXT.P7TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BOARD WITH COPY TO RESPONDENTS 3 AND 5. EXT.P9TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2006. RESPONDENTS'EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 31515 OF 2006 B -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th November, 2008 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing respondents 2 to 4 or the concerned among them to immediately facilitate grant of electricity supply to the petitioner's residence the ownership certificate in respect of which has been issued as Ext.P5 by the local authority forthwith at any rate within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honourable Court, if necessary by over ruling the stand of the 5th respondent, Village Officer. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the 5th respondent to withdraw his objections in the matter of the possession certificate issued by him as Ext.P6 and communicated to the 4th respondent and direct him to make immediate arrangements to facilitate electricity connection to the petitioner's residence. (iii) Declare that Ext.P7 notice issued by the 4th WPC.31515/06 B 2 respondent is illegal, in the light of apparently incorrect advice given by the 5th respondent.” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner purchased an extent of 15.019 cents of property vide Ext.P1. He refers to the Schedule of Ext.P1 to contend that the property contained a foundation for construction of a house. He started construction. The Secretary of the Parappanangadi Grama Panchayat issued a stop memo to the petitioner. He approached this Court and Ext.P2 is the Judgment in W.P.(C). No.12964/04. Pursuant to the Judgment, he preferred a representation. The first respondent passed Ext.P3 order dated 12.4.2005. The first respondent directed the controversy to be settled by directing the Secretary, Parappanangadi Grama Panchayat by providing a pathway. The stay was vacated and the building was numbered thereafter and Ext.P4 is produced in this regard. Ext.P5 is the ownership certificate. Ext.P6 is the possession certificate given by the Village Officer. Petitioner applied for getting electric connection. Ext.P7 is the letter given, which is in challenge. In Ext.P7, it is essentially stated WPC.31515/06 B 3 that electric supply cannot be facilitated to the petitioner's house on account of the pendency of W.P.(C). No.12964/04 and proceedings before the RDO. Petitioner filed Ext.P8 before the second respondent, Electricity Board, with copies to respondents 3 and 4. Petitioner also issued a communication as Ext.P9 to the fifth respondent. 3. I heard Shri C. Varghese Kuriakose, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri P.P. Thajudeen, learned standing counsel appearing for the Electricity Board and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that the reason stated in Ext.P7 that W.P.(C). No.12964/04 is pending, is absolutely incorrect and in fact, it was brought to the notice of the Authority by filing Ext.P8. It is also submitted that the construction was over, the building was numbered, and there is no reason for denying electric connection. 5. According to the Government Pleader, there was a proceeding under the Land Utilisation Order proposed by the WPC.31515/06 B 4 RDO. It is stated in Ext.P7 that the Village Officer has, by reference (1) ie. communication dated 23.8.2005, requested that the application for connection need not be considered. In the letter of the Village Officer it was written that only after W.P. (C). No.12964/04 is disposed of and after the order of the RDO, the application of the petitioner need be considered. Learned Government Pleader submits that even as on Today, when the matter came up, there is no order by the RDO. In fact, learned standing counsel points out that it is not open to the Village Officer to ask the Electricity Board to deny connection. 6. Having heard the learned counsel and having perused Ext.P7, I would think that the reason stated in Ext.P7 for declining to consider the application for electric connection cannot be sustained. It is very clear from Ext.P2 that W.P.(C). No.12964/04 came to be disposed of on 11.1.2005. This fact was also brought to the notice of the Authority by the petitioner. There is no order by the RDO even as of now. In such circumstances, Ext.P7 is quashed. There will be a direction to WPC.31515/06 B 5 the fourth respondent to process the application of the petitioner and take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. I make it clear, however, that this will not stand in the way of the proceedings, if any, being taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.