IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35280 of 2008(Y) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SAFIYA KUNJUMUHAMMED, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.LATE KUNJUMUHAMMED,ALUMUTTATHU HOUSE, PATTERIPURAM,ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KALAMASSERY. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KALAMASSERY. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 35280 OF 2008 Y -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd January, 2009 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner is the owner of building bearing No.18/26 of Kalamassery Municipality. She applied for getting electric connection. The Electricity Board is not giving connection stating that the earlier consumer has not paid the entire dues in respect of the electric connection. According to petitioner, the premises was leased out to one Shri Irshad Alam for conducting an internet cafe. He took an electric connection under LT IV Tariff. It is alleging theft that the proceedings are taken for recovering electricity charges and penalty. It is stated that major portion of the demand was paid by the said consumer. Later, while shifting from the same premises, on his request, the supply was disconnected. The said consumer has filed a Writ Petition and this Court granted stay on condition that he pays WPC.35280/08 Y 2 Rs.35,000/= within one month. It is while so that the petitioner was issued with Ext.P3. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the Judgment of this Court in W.P. (C).No.14917/06, the petitioner should be given relief. Therein, a learned Single Judge of this Court took the following view: “2. The two demands or dues that can be treated to be outstanding, if at all, are those pending consideration before this Court in W.P. (C).No.18170/03 and W.P.(C).3486/06. In the former, there is an interlocutory order in the form of Ext.P7, whereby all further proceedings and enforcement of the impugned bill were stayed. In the latter, by Order dated 6.2.2006, there was an interim direction that the bank guarantees provided by the petitioner shall not be encashed. By the force of the said interim orders, it is inappropriate for the Electricity Board to treat the outstandings as dues, on the basis of which, it WPC.35280/08 Y 3 could take a decision to refuse power allocation. Once a demand made by the Electricity Board is stayed by this Court, it has to take the status of the demand under suspended animation and such a demand cannot be the foundation for refusal of a demand for power allocation.” 3. I feel that the petitioner should also be given the benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will file an undertaking before this Court that she will not transfer the property in any manner, and that she will pay the balance amount after final adjudication of the issue. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: There will be a direction to the respondents to give electric connection to the premises in question as requested in Ext.P1 application, upon the petitioner filing an Affidavit before this Court undertaking that she will not alienate the building in question in any manner, and that she will clear the amount remaining to be paid upon final adjudication of the issue, WPC.35280/08 Y 4 provided the petitioner complies with all the formalities as required in law. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge