Kerala High Court
Vidyadharan P.R vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 22 February, 2012
Author: B.P. Ray
Bench: B.P.Ray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/10TH CHAITHRA 1934
WP(C).No. 5715 of 2012 (L)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
VIDYADHARAN P.R.,
CHAKRA NIVAS, NALLALAM P.O., MODERN JUNCTION
KOZHIKODE-673 027.
BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE ASSITANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, FAROOK
KOZHIKODE-673 001.
3. THE ASSITANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30-03-2012, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO. 6601/2012, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 5715 of 2012 (L)
: 2 :
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FIXED ON THE PREMISES OF THE
PETITIONER'S SHOP ROOM.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GGRF DATED 22/2/2012.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 24.08.2011 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 29.12.2010.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 27.04.2011.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE INDEMNITY BOND.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge.
B.P. RAY, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) Nos. 5715 & 6601 of 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2012.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6601 of 2012, who is the present owner of a building situated in Re.Sy. No. 260/11A of Cheruvannoor Village of Kozhikode Taluk, is a consumer of Kerala State Electricity Board with consumer No. 12329 having a three phase connection with 7A tariff with 5000 watts of connected load and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5715 of 2012 is the occupant of a room in the aforesaid building. Common issues are raised in these writ petitions. For convenience, W.P. (C) No. 5715 of 2012 is taken as a prime case.
2. The petitioner is running a chitty company in the name and style of 'Sree Chakra Chitty Funds' in the aforesaid building. On 25.08.2011, the Anti Power Theft Squad conducted an inspection in the aforesaid building and found that the meter in the room has been tampered. Thereafter, Ext.P2 notice of disconnection has been issued to the petitioner and power supply to the petitioner's room has been disconnected. A penal bill of Rs.1,72,568 has been issued in the name of original owner W.P.(C) Nos.5715 and 6601 of 2012 : 2 : Sri. K.P. Muhammed Ali. Since he refused to pay the amount, one K.P.M. Sakeer on behalf of the present owner had remitted the penal amount along with compounding fee on protest. Even after the payment of entire amount, the power supply to the petitioner's room has not been restored. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kozhikode (for short 'CGRF') by filing O.P. No. 44/2011-
12. The CGRF as per Ext.P3 order dated 22.02.2012 directed respondents 2 and 3 to re-effect the power supply to the petitioner on filing an application for power. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondents 2 and 3 and submitted that he had already filed an application on 01.02.2012 and produced a copy of Ext.P3. But the 3rd respondent intimated the petitioner that the present owner has directed them not to effect the power supply to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5715 of 2012 has filed this writ petition seeking implementation of Ext.P3 order; whereas Shri. K.T. Mohammed Rabeeh, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6601 of 2012 has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 order on the ground that unless the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5715 of W.P.(C) Nos.5715 and 6601 of 2012 : 3 : 2012 pays the amount paid by Shri. K.T. Mohammed Rabeeh, the power supply should not be connected to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5715 of 2012.
4. The findings entered into by the CGRF is as follows:
" As per the prevailing rules electricity cannot be denied to a consumer for long or for a life time. The objection of the registered owner of the connection/owner of the building is not a deciding factor for giving supply to a consumer, if other conditions/rules are obeyed by the consumer. In brief, nobody has the right to deny electricity to a consumer. As per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is the duty of the Licensee to give electricity to such premises on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, as per the conditions as stipulated by the appropriate commission. Clause 14(4) and 14(4)(b) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 ensures supply to a consumer in the absence of consent from the owner of the premises, if the consumer observes the rules/conditions stipulated. So the petitioner, who being the consumer of the premises, requires power supply and is eligible for getting power on making an application for re- effecting the electricity connection.
The respondents shall re-effect power supply to the petitioner, under Electrical Section, Feroke, on his filing an application for power in keeping with the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005."
5. Going through the documentary evidence and the order passed by the CGRF, I am of the considered view that this Court cannot come to a different conclusion by analysing the evidence. Therefore, I do not find any merit in Writ Petition No. 6601 of W.P.(C) Nos.5715 and 6601 of 2012 : 4 : 2012 and the same is dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5715 of 2012 submits that he is running the business without power supply and therefore, Ext.P3 order may be implemented.
7. In the circumstances, I direct that Ext.P3 order of the CGRF shall be implemented within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment provided the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5715 of 2012 complies the statutory requirements for electric connection. Since the amount is disputed, it is open to the parties to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance.
sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.
rv