IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1842 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21414/2010 Dated 13/07/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION --------------------------------------------- PATRESHIA JOSEPH, W/O.JOSEPH, JERAVAS, ROMA VILLA, ST.ANDREWS, ST.XAVIERS COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM VAYALAN KODIYIL VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS MS.MEENA JOHN M RESPONDENT(S): WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2-4 IN WPC: ---------------------------------------------- 1. ANTONY JERAVAS @ ANTONY FERNANDEZ @ KUNJUMON, S/O.LATE JERAVAS, VAYALILKODIYIL, (VAREECHAZHIKOM VEEDU), KUREEPUZHA, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. JOSEPH JERAVAS, ROMA VILLA, ST.ANDREWS, ST.XAVIERS COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM VAYALAN KODIYIL VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PERINAD, KOLLAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC MR.B.MOHANLAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- WA No.1842 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned standing counsel appearing for the Electricity Board and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 2. The appellant's case is that the 1st respondent, who is her husband's brother, trespassed upon the property of the appellant and is residing in the building in the property with his family. There appears to be a civil dispute going on between the appellant representing her husband and the 1st respondent with regard to ownership and possession of the property. Going by the request made by the appellant, the Electricity Board itself conducted some enquiry and disconnected the power supply to the house occupied by the 1st respondent. Against this, the 1st respondent approached W.A.No.1842/2010 -2- the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which issued directions to the Electricity Board to restore power connection to the 1st respondent. However, the connection so given was later disconnected on the appellant's request and after hearing the appellant. It is against this order, the 1st respondent approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.21414/2010, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge directing restoration of connection. It is against this judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant contending that the 1st respondent is not entitled to electricity connection in the house claimed by the appellant as belonging to her husband. 3. After hearing learned counsel for all parties, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge because by disconnecting supply, the appellant does not get possession of the house occupied by the 1st respondent and his family. At the maximum, the appellant's effort is to make life difficult for the 1st respondent, who will have to live in the house without electricity W.A.No.1842/2010 -3- connection. We are of the view that the dispute on the property, whether it be title, possession or whatever else, has to be settled by Civil Court. However, until the 1st respondent and his family are removed from the building, we feel he is entitled to electricity connection and therefore the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in this regard does not call for any modification. However, we make it clear that the electricity connection obtained by the 1st respondent under orders of this Court does not advance his case for title over the property and period of possession of the property, which are matters to be decided by Civil Court. In other words, orders issued by this Court on electricity connection should not advance the case of the 1st respondent for the property, if he, otherwise, is not entitled to. Therefore, leaving open all issues on dispute on land and building between the appellant and the 1st respondent to be settled in Civil Court, we dismiss the Writ Appeal directing the Electricity Board to retain electricity connection as long as the W.A.No.1842/2010 -4- 1st respondent and his family are residing there, on payment of usual charges. In view of the dispute between the parties, we direct the Electricity Board to ensure that the electricity charges are collected without any delay, because if the 1st respondent falls in arrears and he leaves the building later, it will be difficult for the Board to recover the arrears. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg