IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 OP.No. 13188 of 2002(T) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M. UNNEEN HAJI, MULANHIPULAN HOUSE, B.H. ROAD, KOTTAKKAL. BY ADV. SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL SRI.P.K.NISHAD (PUZHITHARA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E. BOARD, KOTTAKKAL. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.B., MANJERI. 4. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1TO3 SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN, S.C. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P. NO. 13188/2002. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOICE DT. 14-8-2001. EXT.P2 LETTER DT. 2-8-2001. EXT.P3 PROCEEDINGS DT. 1-10-2001. EXT.P4 COMMUNICATION DT. 15-5-2002. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 1-5-2002. EXT.P5(a) ORDER FORM DT. 4-5-2002. EXT.P5(b) ORDER FORM DT. 3-5-2002. EXT.P5(C) DO. DT. 1-5-2002. EXT.P5(d) DO. DT. 6-5-2002. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 13188 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner constructed an auditorium by name “Ganga Auditorium” at Kottakkal. He applied for and obtained electricity connection for that auditorium by Ext. P1. Much thereafter, the petitioner was informed that since the height of the auditorium was more than 15 meters, prior sanction from the Electrical Inspector ought to have been obtained. Accordingly, he was directed to obtain sanction from the Electrical Inspector for the electrical installation of the building along with approval for the generator installed in the premises within two months. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner obtained Ext. P3 sanction from the Electrical Inspector, Malappuram and submitted the same before the 2nd respondent. Despite the same, by Ext. P4, the electricity connection to the petitioner's premises was disconnected arbitrarily. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling respondents 1 to 3 to reconnect the electrical supply connection provided to the petitioner, covered by Consumer No. 17231 of Electrical Major Section, Kottakkal; (ii) to issue an order quashing Ext. P4 as arbitrary and illegal.” 2. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board would argue to sustain Ext. P4 disconnection notice on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions prescribed in Ext. P3 sanction. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly, electricity connection was already given. It is only thereafter that the petitioner was informed about the necessity O.P.No. 13188/2002. -: 2 :- for obtaining sanction from the Electrical Inspector. Of course, the learned standing counsel for the Board would contend that the connection was given by the concerned Engineer illegally for which proceedings have been initiated against him. But the respondents have not even filed any counter affidavit containing such an averment. In compliance with Ext. P2 intimation issued to the petitioner directing him to obtain and forward sanction from Electrical Inspector, Malappuram for the electrical installation of the building along with approval for the generator installed in the premises within two months, the petitioner had obtained and produced Ext. P3 sanction from the Electrical Inspector. No doubt, certain conditions are mentioned in Ext. P3. If the petitioner had not complied with those conditions, respondents 1 to 3 may have been justified in disconnecting the electricity supply. But, before that, they were bound to put the petitioner on notice regarding the non-compliance with the condition specifically stating as to which of the conditions in Ext. P3 have not been complied with, giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Ext. P4 reads thus: “Vide reference cited above, I am directed to disconnect the Electric Connection to the above premises of Consumer No. 17231 immediately. I, therefore, inform you that the Electric Connection to Consumer No. 17231 will be disconnected within 24 hours of issue of this notice. The same will be reconnected after observing the necessary formalities.” Absolutely, no reason whatsoever is mentioned as to why the O.P.No. 13188/2002. -: 3 :- electricity supplied to the petitioner's premises was being disconnected. There is no allegation therein that the petitioner has not complied with any condition in Ext. P3 or that he is guilty of any other violation whatsoever. Therefore, Ext. P4 is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. That being so, I do not have to think twice to quash Ext. P4. Accordingly, Ext. P4 is quashed. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/