IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 755 of 2008(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- A.G.SUBHASH CHANDRAN, S/O. SRI.A.G.GOPIDAS, AGED 53 YEARS, `AG SADANAM', THRIKKODITHANAM PO, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., M.D.COMMERCIAL CENTRE, KK ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), ELECTRICAL SECTION, THRIKKODITHANAM, KOTTAYAM-686 105. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSFE, LTD FOR R1 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.755/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 2.1.08 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF REQUET LETTER NO.SDT/KTM/3892, 3893, 2004-05 DATED 1.1.2008 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ATTACHMENT NOTICE AND DEMAND NOTICE. TRUE COPY T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.755 Of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein approached this Court aggrieved by the disconnection of the electricity connection purportedly at the instance of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery). 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of a saw mill named Surya Saw Mill situated in the building in Survey No.45/15 of Thrikkodithanam Village. The petitioner is a consumer of the 4th respondent-Board with Consumer No.2877. 3. According to the petitioner by Exhibit P1, the petitioner was issued notice proposing disconnection at the instance of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery). The communication of the Special Tahsildar has been produced as Exhibit P2, which shows that the parties had dues with the KSFE towards various items. The KSFE has initiated revenue recovery proceedings. Accordingly, a request was made to temporarily disconnect the power supply also. 4. This Court by an interim order dated 8.1.2008 directed respondents 4 and 5 to restore the electricity connection to the W.P.(C)No.755/08 -2- petitioner's premises forthwith. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Shri O.V.Radhakrishnan submits that there is no provision under which the Revenue Recovery authorities can request the officials of the Board to effect disconnection. The provision under the then existing Indian Electricity Act is Section 24, which concerns discontinuance of supply to consumer only if there is negligence to pay any charge. It is pointed out that the same conditions have been incorporated under Condition No.4 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, which shows that only if the circumstances therein are existing the authorities of the Board can effect any disconnection, that too only after following certain procedures also. Herein none of those contingencies are attracted. Therefore, evidently, Exhibit P1 cannot be supported. 6. There is no provision under the Revenue Recovery Act also for the recovery to be effected by means of disconnection of the electricity supply. Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act provides various modes namely attachment and sale of defaulter's movable property, attachment and sale of defaulter's immovable property and by appointing an agent for the W.P.(C)No.755/08 -3- management of the defaulter's immovable property. The present method has no statutory support either under the Indian Electricity Act or under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, Exhibits P1 and P2 cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that some arrears were there at the time of disconnection. But those details are not incorporated in Exhibit P1 notice, evidently. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that arrears have already been cleared also. As the reconnection has been effected in terms of the interim order, no further orders for reconnection is required at this stage. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. Exhibits P1 and P2 are quashed. No costs. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn