IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25326 of 2008(M) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAIS ABRAHAM, VADASSERIYIL HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PONKUNNAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PONKUNNAM. 4. SABU V. JOSE, S/O. JOSEPH, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, VAZHOOR EAST, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, CHENGALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SR. SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 25326 OF 2008 M -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th August, 2008 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is a young Graduate in Engineering. He purchased a foam bed manufacturing unit named "Allied Rubber Industries" from the fourth respondent free from all encumbrances and charges vide Ext.P1. The fourth respondent, it is his case, has undertaken to clear all the liabilities of the said industry including electricity and tax arrears. For running the unit, the petitioner approached respondents 2 and 3 for availing electric connection. There was denial, stating that there are arrears. It is stated that for realisation of the arrears of the fourth respondent, another property of the fourth respondent was attached as can be seen from Ext.P2. It is stated that since the property sufficient to discharge the liability of the fourth respondent has been proceeded with, there is no justification to WPC.25326/08 M 2 deny a fresh connection. Accordingly, a mandamus is sought to give electric connection to the petitioner's industrial unit without insisting for payment of electricity arrears due from the fourth respondent. A declaration is also sought that the petitioner is not liable to remit the arrears of electricity charges due from the erstwhile owner and that the petitioner's property covered by Ext.P1 is free from charges with respect to the liabilities of the fourth respondent to the Electricity Board. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the decision in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd. and Others (AIR 2004 SC 2171). A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the question in the decision in Purushothaman v. KSEB(2007 (2) KLT 827). It is pointed out that the Division Bench has WPC.25326/08 M 3 considered the later decision of the Apex Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Paramount Polymers (P) Ltd. ((2006) 13 SCC 101) and it took the view that for getting a fresh connection, the amount has to be paid by the person intending to get fresh connection. A mandamus can be sought only if there is a legal right and a concomitant duty on the part of the respondent Electricity Board. When the law declares that for getting fresh connection, the amount has to be paid, I do not find how a mandamus will lie to the contrary. When the law states that the amount should be paid, it may not be sufficient to contend that vide Ext.P2 proceedings have been taken against the fourth respondent and his property has been attached. There is a clear provision which insists on payment of arrears as a condition for granting fresh connection on the same premises and when admittedly the petitioner is demanding connection to re-start the very same Unit which he has purchased from the WPC.25326/08 M 4 fourth respondent, clearly the provision in question, namely Regulation 15(e) will spring into play and taboo the grant of connection except on payment of arrears. I see no merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge