Kerala High Court
The Assistant Executive Engineer vs Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ... on 13 March, 2020
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1941
RP.No.224 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 13420/2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13420/2018(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONERS:
1 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,KSE BOARD LTD,
BALUSSERY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SECTION,KSEB LTD,UNNIKULAM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR R., SC, KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM NORTHERN REGION,
HIS BUILDING SITUATED AT MANKAYAM IN PANANGAD
PANCHAYATH,VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,GANDHI ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673011.
2 P.T.MATHEW,
PLATHOTTAM HOUSE,MALAPARAMBA.P.O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673009.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.HARISH
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. M.V. ANANDAN SR GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2020, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.224 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 13420/2018
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short) and its functionaries seeking review of the judgment dated 03.12.2018 on various grounds, but primarily that the order impugned in the writ petition, namely, Ext.P5 could not have been issued by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF for short), since it had no jurisdiction to consider the aspects mentioned therein. They also assert that the entitlement of the 2nd respondent herein, who was the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, to an electric connection under the Total Electrification Programme (TEP) is depend upon various criterion, the primary of it being that he should have been found so eligible by the Beneficiary Committee.
2. The petitioners say that as is evident from Ext.P3, the Beneficiary Committee has found the second respondent not eligible for two reasons; (a) that the building in question was being used by him as a godown and commercial space; and (b) that he is not entitled to the benefits under the Total Electrification Programme, particularly when the cost for electrification of his premises will be more than Rs.2,07,000/-, because he does not belong to an economically lower category RP.No.224 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 13420/2018 3 while the Total Electrification Programme is exclusively for such citizens.
3. The petitioners contend that, however, when the writ petition was decided, it had been omitted by them to bring the afore contentions before this Court effectively; and that therefore, this Court had directed the CGRF to reconsider the matter, however, only from the angle whether the premises in question was being used as a godown for commercial purposes or a residential accommodation for his labourers and to then grant relief in terms of the Total Electrification Programme.
4. The petitioners contend that the question of jurisdiction of the CGRF and the applicability of the TEP Scheme to a person like the 2 nd respondent, who is an Advocate and from an affluent strata of society, was not directed to be considered by the CGRF and thus that they have now issued a new order dated 11.01.2019, directing the KSEB to grant electrification to the premises in question, merely finding that it has not been used as a commercial godown. They, therefore, pray that the judgment be reviewed and the afore contentions also be directed to be considered by the CGRF.
5. Sri.P.A.Harish, learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd RP.No.224 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 13420/2018 4 respondent, vehemently opposes this petition stating that this petition has been filed with the intention of an impermissible attempt of seeking a rehearing of the writ petition particularly, on the question of the jurisdiction of the CGRF. He says that, as is evident from the judgment of this Court sought to be reviewed, these contentions had never been raised and the KSEB had stated at that time that they were only concerned about the findings of the CGRF with respect to the premises of the 2nd respondent being put to use as a commercial godown and nothing else. He says that in such circumstances, this review petition may not be entertained; adding to his submissions by saying that the Government Order relating to the Total Electrification Programme does not distinguish a member belonging to economically weaker class from a person who is not so, and that the said Scheme is intended to obtain total electrification in the State of Kerala without causing any distinction between one citizen or the other. He asserts that therefore, the CGRF was completely right in having issued the order dated 11.01.2019, pursuant to the directions of this Court in the judgment sought to be reviewed and thus prays that this review petition be dismissed.
RP.No.224 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 13420/2018 5
6. When I hear the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the question of jurisdiction of the CGRF had never been raised by the KSEB at any point of time and in fact, such jurisdiction was conceded by the KSEB while the writ petition was heard. It was in such circumstances that the judgment had been delivered directing the KSEB to adjudicate the factual disputes between the parties, as to whether the premises in question was being used as a commercial godown or for residential accommodation. I cannot therefore, find the present submissions of Sri.Sudheer Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the CGRF had no jurisdiction to look into these aspects to be worthy; and am of the view that such contentions can only be seen as an attempt to get over the rigour of the directions earlier. I therefore, repel these contentions as being without any merit.
7. That said, however, I find some force in the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB as regards the question whether the applicable Government Orders allows the grant of free electric connection to a premises owned by a person of economically higher class, but I do not propose to speak affirmatively on it, since I am of the view that the CGRF RP.No.224 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 13420/2018 6 ought to have considered this also before it could have passed a final order.
8. Even though this particular contention had not been taken at the time when the judgment sought to be reviewed was delivered, since it is an aspect that is intrinsically connected with the terms of the Government Order relating to the Total Electrification Programme, I am of the view that it will be justified for this Court to review the judgment to that limited extent and direct the CGRF to consider this also; however, without disturbing any of the other conclusions, which has been arrived at by it on facts.
Resultantly, I allow this review petition in part; and consequently, direct the 1st respondent - CGRF to further consider whether the Government Order with respect to the Total Electrification Programme would cover a person like the 2nd respondent, who is concededly not from an economically weaker class and then issue a fresh order - however, without disturbing the earlier findings regarding the user of the premises in question, which has been found by it to be put to use only as a residential accommodation - after affording necessary opportunity to both sides, as expeditiously as is possible but not RP.No.224 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 13420/2018 7 later than 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
I make it clear that since this remand is being ordered only on the question of the applicability of the Total Electrification Programme to the 2nd respondent, no other issue - be that on law or on facts - will be considered by the CGRF and the resultant order to be issued by it will confirm all such, subject to its view on the afore question.
This review petition is thus ordered.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE