IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 37495 of 2008(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. V.I.YAMUNA,W/O. T.P.NARAYANAN, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAZHEPADIKKAL HOUSE, KALARIVATHUKKAL , P.O.VALAPATTANAM,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. T.P.NARAYANAN, S/O.T.P.NARAYANAN, AGED 40 YEARS,RESIDING AT THAZHEPADIKKAL HOUSE, KALARIVATHUKKAL , P.O.VALAPATTANAM,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PAPPINISSERY,KANNUR. 3. T.P.VASUDEVAN, S/O.T.P.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT THAZHEPADIKKAL, KALARIVATHUKKAL, P.O.VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC,KSEB, R3 BY ADV.MR.DINESH R.SHENOY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.37495/2008-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RECONSTITUTED PARTNERSHIP DEED DTD. 08/10/1997 INDICATING THAT THE P.1. AND THE R.3. ARE PARTNERS OF THE SAID M/S. TAGORE WOOD INDUSTRIES. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE DEED OF RELEASE AND RETIREMENT DTD. 28/11/2007 EXECUTED BY THE R.3. AND HIS WIFE IN FAVOUR OF THE P.1. AND ANOTHER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EXECUTED ON 28/11/2007 BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND ONE V. PARVATHI. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PROPERTY EXECUTED BY MR. VASUDEVAN DTD. 05/05/1998. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PROPERTY EXECUTED BY MR. NARAYANAN & MR. VASUDEVAN DTD. 05/05/1998. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DTD. 21/07/2008 TO M/S. TAGORE WOOD INDUSTRIES, PADIKKUNI. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE P.1. TO THE R.2. DTD. 02/12/2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PAPPINISSERY TO THE P.1. DTD. 02/12/2008. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO. 567/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR FILED BY THE R.3. AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KANNUR, GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION FOR SUPPLY OF POWER TO THE R.3. ALONG WITH THE ESTIMATE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURE: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DTD. 02/07/2000 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE P.1. AND ONE OTHER IN FAVOUR OF THE R.3. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 4 DTD. 30/05/2000. EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 9 DTD. 04/07/2000. EXT.R3.D: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 22/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KANNUR. W.P.(C). NO.37495/2008-L: EXT.R3.E: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 23/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KANNUR. EXT.R3.F: COPY OF THE FAMILY ARRANGEMENT DTD. 06/06/2008 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE P.2. AND THE R.3. EXT.R3.G: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. NIL. SUBMITTED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER K.P. RAJENDRA BABU, I.A. NO. 4289/2008 IN OS.NO.569/2008, MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. EXT.R3.H: COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 17/12/2008 FILED IN O.S. NO. 583/2008, MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. EXT.R3.I: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. NIL. SUBMITTED BY REENA.M.V., ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN I.A. NO. 4433/2008 IN O.S. NO. 583/2008, MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. ANNEUXRE-1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S WIFE TO THE R.2. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.37495 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioners' grievance is regarding the inaction on the part of the respondent Board in taking action on Ext.P7. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a partnership firm by name M/s. Tagore Wood Industries, was constituted with the first petitioner and the wife of the 3rd respondent as its partners. Subsequently, by Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent was also inducted as partner of the firm. The firm established a small scale Industrial Unit at Pappinissery and was availing of supply of energy with Consumer No.8296 with the first petitioner as consumer. 3. While so, the 3rd respondent and his wife retired from the firm and the firm was reconstituted by WP(c).No.37495/08 2 inducting the 2nd petitioner and another as partners. It is stated that on their retirement, the 3rd respondent and his wife established another industry called M/s. Periyar Wood Industries in an adjacent premises, to which also supply of energy is being given by the respondents with a separate consumer number. 4. Petitioners submit that the premises where M/s. Tagore Wood Industries was located at Pappinissery belong to the petitioners and the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P4 and P5 documents. Following reconstitution of the firm as stated above, the petitioners who continued the business under the name and style as M/s. Tagore Wood Industries, also shifted their industrial unit to a place in Padikunnu in Kannur District itself, where also supply is being made by the Board as per Ext.P6. 5. Still later the first petitioner, being the consumer of No.8296, submitted Ext.P7 request to the 3rd respondent requesting to disconnect power supply to the premises where Periyar Wood Industries was originally located. It is stated that she has also remitted the fee that is payable. WP(c).No.37495/08 3 Despite having made the application as above, supply was not disconnected and as her requests did not yield any result, this writ petition was filed. 6. Although, in the statement filed by it, the first respondent admits that, the first petitioner is the consumer in so far as consumer No.8296 is concerned, they justify the inaction on Ext.P7 referring to Annexure-1, where wife of the 3rd respondent has requested for continuance of the power supply. The 3rd respondent on the other hand relies on Ext.R3(a) contends that there is a lease agreement between the 3rd respondent and the petitioners. 7. Irrespective of the controversies that are now going on between the petitioners on the one side and the 3rd respondent and his wife on the other side, fact remains that the first petitioner is a consumer in so far as consumer No.8296 is concerned. Once a consumer makes a request for disconnection of power supply to his premises and has complied with the procedural requisite in that regard, there is no reason why the Board or its official shall not act upon the same, unless they are restrained by some order passed WP(c).No.37495/08 4 by a competent forum. 8. In this case the, fact that a request has been received from the first petitioner and that she is the consumer in respect of consumer No.8296 is concerned is not in dispute. There is also no case that any competent forum has restrained the respondents from proceeding with the request. If that be so, the 2nd respondent ought to have acted upon Ext.P7 and he having failed to do, it is directed that, he shall do immediately on production of a copy of this judgment. However, It is clarified that any action taken on Ext.P7 pursuant to this judgment, shall be without prejudice to the contentions which the 3rd respondent may have against the petitioners or vice versa and the proceedings if any pending between the parties. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.37495/08 5