Kerala High Court
Kunhahammed Kutty C.P vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 12 March, 2012
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/29TH ASWINA, 1935
WP(C).No. 25499 of 2013 (J)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONERS : -
------------------------
1. KUNHAHAMMED KUTTY C.P.,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.C.P.POCKER,
CHOLAKKAL PULIKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE,
TANALUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676007.
2. YASIR C.P.,S/O.C.P.POCKER,
CHOLAKKAL PULIKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE,
TANALUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676007.
3. JAISAL C.P.,S/O.C.P.POCKER,
CHOLAKKAL PULIKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE,
TANALUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676007,
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE POWER HOLDER, 1ST PETITIONER.
4. C.P.POCKER, S/O.C.P.POCKER,
CHOLAKKAL PULIKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE,
TANALUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676007.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.ANISON
SMT.K.P.GEETHAMANI
SMT.T.B.REMANI
SMT.V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD)
SMT.P.A.RINUSA
RESPONDENTS : -
--------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, TANALUR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676007.
3. TANALUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TANALUR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676007.
BY SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 25499 of 2013 (J)
-------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : -
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 12-3-2012
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TANALUR.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATEDATED 13-2-2013 ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TANALUR.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2-4-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3rd
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30-4-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER'S FATHER BEFORE THE 3rd RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-4-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3rd
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-6-2013 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF
GOVT. INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF OWNERSHIP
CHANGE FEE DATED 11-7-2013.
EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-5-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2nd
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2-4-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3rd
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7-8-2013 ISSUED BY R2.
EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7-8-2013 ISSUED BY R2.
EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3-10-2013 ISSUED BY R2.
EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 2-5-2013 ISSUED BY R3.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : - NIL.
---------------------------------------
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
DMR/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.25499 of 2013-J
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Exhibits P9, P12 and P13 proceedings of the third respondent. The third respondent has, by the issue of Exhibit P9, directed the second respondent not to grant an electric connection to the petitioners' building. As per Exhibit P12, the second respondent has informed that their application for the grant of an electric connection has been referred to the Electrical Subdivision, Tirur East for directions and that the application would be considered after receiving such directions or clarifications. As per Exhibit P13, the petitioners' application for the issue of an ownership certificate for the purpose of obtaining an electric connection has been rejected finding that their construction is made in violation of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. According to the counsel for the -:2:- W.P.(C) No.25499 of 2013-J petitioners, their building was constructed by the 4th petitioner father in the year 1952. He had transferred the ownership in favour of petitioners 1 to 3. At that time, they were minors. The building was assessed to property tax. Exhibit P2 is a receipt for payment of property tax. The electric connection of the building which was in the name of the former tenant was dismantled when the tenant vacated the building. Thereafter, the petitioners made certain modifications to the building. According to the counsel for the petitioners, only weather shades have been fixed and no other constructions have been made. An order under Section 235W of the Kerla Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act' for short) was issued directing the petitioners to demolish the offending constructions, which is Exhibit P5. The petitioners have challenged Exhibit P5 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No.576 of 2013. Exhibit P6 is an interim order of stay granted to the petitioners in the -:3:- W.P.(C) No.25499 of 2013-J said appeal. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that since the building was already in existence from 1952 onwards and the order of demolition Exhibit P5 has been stayed by Exhibit P6, there is no impediment in granting an electric connection to the petitioners. It is contended that the Secretary of the Panchayat has no authority or power to direct the Electricity Board or the second respondent not to grant an electric connection to the petitioners. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate directions quashing Exhibits P9, P12 and P13.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, the counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
3. It is not in dispute that an ownership certificate in respect of the building is necessary for the purpose of seeking an electric connection. As per Exhibit P13, the petitioners' application for ownership certificate has been rejected. The petitioners have a statutory right of appeal -:4:- W.P.(C) No.25499 of 2013-J against Exhibit P13, if they are aggrieved by the same. The petitioners' construction has been found to be violative of the provisions of the Building Rules and therefore an order under Section 235W has already been issued. It is true that the petitioners have challenged Exhibit P5 before the Tribunal and that an interim order of stay has been granted by the said authority. The said proceedings are still pending. Therefore, whether any portion of the petitioners' building would have to be demolished or not is a question that would have to depend on the fate of their appeal before the Tribunal. The Panchayat has declined to grant an ownership certificate to the petitioners for the reason that the construction made by them is in violation of the Building Rules and it is alleged that the construction has been made without obtaining the permission of the Panchayat. Until the issues are finally resolved by the Tribunal, the petitioners cannot insist that an electric connection should be granted to the building. Therefore, I am not satisfied -:5:- W.P.(C) No.25499 of 2013-J that any direction to issue an Electric Connection to the petitioners should be granted at this stage. A perusal of Exhibit P12 shows that the application submitted by the petitioners for electric connection has not been rejected. The second respondent is only awaiting some clarification from the Sub Divisional Office, Tirur East. For the above reason also, I do not find any grounds to entertain this writ petition. The petitioners, should they require any interim directions, would have to seek such orders from the Tribunal before which the question as to whether their construction is legal or not is pending consideration.
For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj