IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20640 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- B.SURIAKUMAR, RESIDING AT JANAKI NIVAS, MUDAPPALLUR P.O., (VIA) VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN-678 705. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. 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. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20640 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an allotee of an industrial shed, situated in the Mini Industrial Estate, Vadakkancherry. The power supply was not given to the shed in question on the ground that the previous allotee had defaulted in paying the dues to the Board. Petitioner disputed the said liability by filing WP(C) No.22285/08. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 11th of June, 2009, holding that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the arrears of the previous allotee and that the application for supply of energy should be considered on merits. Despite this, supply was not given and according to the petitioner, the reason is that the respondents are awaiting the sanction of the Secretary of the Board for giving supply of electricity to the premises of the petitioner. 2. From the pleadings in this writ petition, it is evident that, according to the petitioner, the only reason for the respondents not to give power supply to the premises in question was the arrears due from the previous allotee. That issue has WPC 20640/09 :2 : been settled by Ext.P3 judgment referred to above. If that be so, the arrears of the previous consumer cannot be a reason to deny supply to the premises of the petitioner. 3. Therefore, the 1st respondent is directed to give supply to the premises of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, provided all other requirements are satisfied. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp