IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 22285 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.SURIAKUMAR, S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT JANAKI NIVAS, MUDAPPALLUR P.O., VADAKKANCHERY VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 705. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES, BEHIND CIVIL STATION COMPUND, PALAKKAD 678 001. 2. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, NO.S(IND)P (MIE)50, CIVIL STATION, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRCIAL SUB DIVISION, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTPAURAM, PIN - 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION,,K.P.F.C.BHAVANAM, C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD,VELLAYAMABALAM, THIRUVANANTPAURAM-695 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.O.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR FOR R2 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSE BOARD MR.T.K.KUNHABDULLA FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS.2228 & 9006 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22285/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 14/11/2006 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 14/05/2007 MADE BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF ORDER NO.VI/3055/07 DATED 23/07/2007 PASSED BY THE GM, DIC, PALAKKAD. P4 : COPY OF BOND DATED 03/08/07 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF R2. P5 : COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 09/10/2007 MADE by the PETITIONER BEFORE R3. P6 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.C3/GCC/6551/07 DATED 20/11/2007. P7 : COPY OF BOARD ORDER NO.2124/93(TCI/9490/88) DATED 09/11/93 PASSED BY THE KSEB. P8 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED VDCY/GEN/2007-08/44 DATED 08/01/2008 ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PETITIONER. P9 : COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.KSEB/TRAC/SCODE/05/R2 DATED 16/03/2006 REFERRED IN EXT.P8. P10 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.RTIA/ESO/VDCY/2007-08/64 DATED 13/02/2008 ISSUED BY R3. P11 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 15/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. P12 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.PDMIECS/KSEB/VDY/08 DATED 17/05/2008 MADE BY R2 TO R1 WITH COPY MARKED TO THE PETITIONER. P13 : COPY OF PROCEEDIGNS NO.KSERC/SUPPLY CODE/2/140/2006 DATED 27/02/2006 PASSED BY KSE REGULATORY COMMISSION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a) : COPY OF ORDER DATED 23/07/07 OF R3. R3(b) : COPY OF BOND/AGREEMENT DATED 03/08/07 EXECUTED BETWEEN SURYAKUMAR AND HIS WIFE ON THE ONE PART AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT SOCIETY on the OTHER PART. R3(c) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/02/2008 ISSUED BY R2 TO R3. WPC NO.22285/2008 R3(d) : COPY OF G.O.NO.100/2008 DATED 18/04/2008 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. R3(e) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 21/05/2008 ISSUED BY R2 TO R3. R3(f) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 07/06/2008 ISSUED BY R3 TO THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, TRIVANDRUM. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.22285 of 2008, 2228 & 9006 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T In these three cases, the petitioners have applied for power connection. Their applications have been declined for the reason that previous consumers, to whom energy was being supplied in the premises in question, were defaulters, and therefore, they were told that unless the arrears are cleared, supply cannot be given. 2. The petitioners approached this Court contending that by virtue of Clause 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply and Clause 12 of the Supply Code, they could not be made liable for arrears, if any, of the previous consumers. 3. It is reported that the order passed by the KSEB Regulatory Commission staying the operation of the aforesaid Clauses has been vacated. 4. In the light of the above, the petitioners cannot be called upon to discharge the liability of the previous consumers. Hence, rejection of their application for supply of energy has to be held WP(C) No.22285/2008, 2228 & 9006/2009 -2- illegal, and I do so. 5. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent Board to consider the applications made by the respective petitioners for supply of energy to the premises applied for by them, and pass orders thereon in the light of the above observations. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg