IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5180 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.VIJAYANANDAN, PROPRIETOR, 'SIGN PARK' DTP & COMPUTERISED POLYMER STAMP AND NAME BOARDS UNIT, TC NO.25/229-A, ELANJI LANE, PULIMOODU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1,RESIDING AT ELUPPARATHALAVILA VEEDU, MEENACHAL P.O., KALIAKAVILA KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM-695034, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR AND ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER, TALUK OFFICE, FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PUTHENCHANTHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. WP(C).No. 5180 of 2008(N) 2 6. C.S.RADHADEVI, TC NO.25/229 ELANJIVILAKOM, PULIMOODU LANE PUTHENCHANTHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) ADV.SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SHRI P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR AND K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 5180 OF 2008 ----------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. The writ petitioner challenges Exhibit P10, P14, P15 and P17 orders. But in this jurisdiction we are concerned only with the validity of Exhibit P17 order which is an appellate order passed by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram reversing the order of the Accommodation Controller, Exhibit P13. The petitioner submits, he is occupying the room owned by the 6th respondent. It is a newly constructed room as part of the residential building of the said respondent. When the petitioner apprehended forcible eviction from the tenanted premises, he moved the Civil Court and the said suit was dismissed taking note of the undertaking of the 6th respondent who was the defendant in that suit that the plaintiff will be evicted only following the due process of law. According to the petitioner, subsequently, the electricity connection to the room has been severed and therefore the petitioner was constrained to move the Accommodation W.P.(C)No. 5180/08 2 Controller. The said Officer, after hearing both sides, passed Exhibit P13 order dated.19.6.2007 directing to restore the connection, it is submitted. But the 6th respondent challenged the said order before the statutory appellate authority, the District Collector. The Collector by Exhibit P17 order reversed the said decision. The appellate authority noticed that the connection to the tenanted room is an extension of the connection granted to the 6th respondent by the KSEB as a domestic connection. The KSEB took the stand that the connection cannot be restored, as the same is illegal. In view of the above stand of the KSEB, the appellate authority reversed the direction of the Accommodation Controller in Exhibit P13. So, this writ petition is filed challenging, inter alia, Exhibit P17. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. He detailed the various grievances of the petitioner. But we notice that the connection to the tenanted room was illegal, as a domestic connection cannot be extended to a premises used for commercial purpose. So, the direction to restore the connection issued by the Accommodation Controller cannot be sustained. Therefore, we are of the view that the District Collector who is the appellate authority rightly interfered with the same. But we do not express any opinion regarding the claim of the writ petitioner to get a separate W.P.(C)No. 5180/08 3 connection to the tenanted premises, even if the landlord objects the same and his contentions in this regard are kept open. The challenge to Exhibits P10, P14 and P15 is also kept open. He may work out his remedies against those orders before the appropriate forum. Needless to say, if there is any other grievances which is raised in this writ petition, but not specifically dealt with by us, they are also kept open and the petitioner will be free to work out his remedies. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. dsn