IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 18162 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THE MANAGER, SANTHINIKETHANAN CENTRAL SCHOOL, PATARAM, SOORANAD SOUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD, SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, SASTHAMKOTTA. 3. R. MADHANA MOHANAN PILLAI, SON OF RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, SASTHAMKOTTA. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, SOORANAD. R1, R2 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 18162 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the callous inaction on the part of the respondents with regard to the application preferred by him (Ext.P1) to provide three phase electric connection. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is to consider the said application in terms of the guidelines contained in Ext.P5. There is also a prayer to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner's school in LT VI A tariff and to issue the bills accordingly. 3. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit, pointing out the actual facts and figures and the reasons for the delay in finalizing the proceedings. It is stated that, at the time of application for three phase connection, it was not at all feasible for providing conversion, as sufficient infrastructure was not available W.P.(C) No. 18162/2010 2 under the existing line. The learned standing counsel points out that though the situation has changed, since there is a 'single phase' connection, there cannot be any separate 'three phase' connection and hence Ext.P1 application is not liable to be entertained. It is pointed out that the petitioner has to file a fresh application for 'conversion' of the existing 'single phase' to 'three phase'. 4. The specific case of the petitioner is that he was all along ready and willing to satisfy the requirement for providing necessary three phase connection by drawing the line from the existing post in the public road. It is also stated that the petitioner is ready to satisfy the expenses, if the line is drawn by way of underground cable as well. 5. Learned standing counsel submits that the the proposal of the petitioner is not feasible due to many a reason. The existing line passes through, between some buildings and that minimum clearance will not be available, when the line is changed to three phase. It is also stated that since the line has to cross a canal and as such, laying W.P.(C) No. 18162/2010 3 of 'underground cable' is out of question. The petitioner was not at all ready or willing to satisfy the expenses for drawing the line through the feasible route, which contributed for the delay in providing the necessary connection. 6. Taking note of rival contentions, this Court makes it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application seeking for conversion of the existing 'single phase' to 'three phase' within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon which, the same shall be considered by the respondents, if it is in order and if the petitioner satisfies the requirements so as to provide the 'three phase' connection and it shall be finalized within two weeks thereafter. 7. With regard to the claim of the petitioner to be classified under LT VIA category and not under LT-VIIA, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner's educational institution is a self-financing one and that the issue regarding eligibility is now pending consideration W.P.(C) No. 18162/2010 4 before the Apex Court. However, taking note of the interim order dated 28-5-2010 in W.A. No.660 of 2010, it is made clear that the arrears, if any, shall not be recovered from the petitioner for the time being, subject to the condition that the petitioner satisfies the current liability under LT VIIA tariff. This will be subject to the decision of Apex Court on the point. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mn.