IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8077 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ N.M.SALIM,S/O. N.MOIDUNNI AGED 35 YEARS, NARUKILAYIL HOUSE MOOKUTHALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.8077/2008-J & WP(C).No.7175/2006-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The standing counsel takes notice for the respondents in WP(C).8077/2008. 2.This shall be treated as the judgment disposing of WP(C).8077/2008 and an interim order in WP(C). 7175/2006. 3.The petitioner in WP(C).7175/2006 is the father of the petitioner in WP(C).8077/2008. Going by the allegations in these writ petitions, it appears that the petitioner in WP(C).7175/2006 and another were carrying on certain activities and this ultimately led to certain actions being WP(C).8077/08 & 7175/06 -: 2 :- taken by the authorities of the Board on the ground of alleged misuse of energy. There are allegations as to whether the Board officials had acted properly and in accordance with law in effecting the seizure of the metering equipment and regarding the manner in which it was sent for inspection. The authority of Larsen & Toubro to conduct the inspection is also under challenge. 4.WP(C).8077/2008 is filed alleging that an application of the petitioner therein for a single phase connection for the premises which has been leased out is not being attended to on the ground that revenue recovery on the basis of demand of the Board in WP(C).7175/2006 still remained unsatisfied. 5.Having heard counsel for parties, it is directed that if the petitioner in WP(C).7175/2006 has deposited the amounts covered by the interim orders issued in that case and furnishes security WP(C).8077/08 & 7175/06 -: 3 :- by way of immovable property for the amounts covered in that writ petition and all accruals thereon to the satisfaction of the concerned Executive Engineer, the application of the petitioner in WP(C).8077/2008 for a fresh connection will be taken up, considered and disposed of untrammelled by the pendency of WP(C). 7175/2006 and the demand which is subject matter of that writ petition. This shall be done within a period of three weeks of furnishing of security as directed above. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/