IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25028 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- POOKUNJU, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O ALIKUNJU, MALIKA VEEDU, KILIKOLLOOR CHERY, MANGADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOLLAM 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PERINADU, KOLLAM 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KILIKOLLOR, KOLLAM. 5. IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O MUHAMMED KUNJU, EMDEES HOSPITAL, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KILIKOLOOR, KOLLAM 691004 (From Valiyaveettil, Vadakkumthala muri, Vadakkumthala Village, Karunagappally) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 25028 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 12th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i. call for the records leading to Exts. P2 to P5 from respondents 1 to 4 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 3rd respondent to initiate Revenue Recovery steps against the 5th respondent for the amount shown in Exts. P2 and P3; iii. declare that the 5th respondent is liable to pay the amount shown in Exts. P2 and P3 since the 5th respondent is occupier of the premises connected for supply of electrical energy and power theft was find out during his period of tenancy; iv. issue such other and further reliefs which the petitioner prays for and this Honourable Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case And v. allow this W.P (C) with the petitioner's costs; 2. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Board submits that, the petitioner admittedly is the owner of the building in question, in the name of whom the power supply has been provided. This being the position, the respondents can only proceed against the owner/consumer and not the tenants and it is for the petitioner to W.P. (C) No. 25028 of 2010 : 2 : proceed against 4th respondent tenant, by resorting to appropriate remedy before the appropriate Forum. 3. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to issue separate notice to the 4th respondent for the time being. The petitioner is at liberty to proceed against the parties concerned, after satisfying the liability to the respondent Board. In the said circumstances, interference is declined. The Writ Petition is dismissed, reserving the rights and liberties of the petitioner as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd