Partly allowed

Kerala State Electricity Board and Anoth v. Sajan P.K.

Kerala HC3 Oct 2011RP/664/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the review petition and dismissed the contempt case filed upon the original writ petition judgment in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Sajan P.K., recalling the prior order to restore the writ petition on the file for merits.

What did the court decide?

The judgment in W.P.(C) No. 21028 of 2011 dated 19/08/2011 is recalled; writ petition restored to file; Review Petition allowed; Contempt Case dismissed.

Kerala State Electricity Board and Anoth Vs Sajan P.K. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 664 of 2011(C)

¶6

--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21028/2011 Dated 19/08/2011

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

¶9

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶10

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NJARAKKAL - 682 504 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶13

¶14

SAJAN P.K., S/O.KUMARAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 509.

¶15

ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2011, ALONG WITH CON. CASE (C) NO. 977/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

R.P. NO. 664/2011

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE A	: TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CONNECTION AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY SMT. KARTHYAYANI IN FAVOUR OF THE BOARD.
ANNEXURE B	: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE BOARD TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE B(a)	: TRUE COPY OF THE REMAINDER LETTER ISSUED BY THE BOARD TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE C	: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30.05.2011 SUBMITTED BY SMT. GEETHA JAWAHAR.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶26

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 664 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.21028 of 2011 & Cont. Case © No. 977 of 2011

¶27

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2011.

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Both the Review petition as well as the Contempt of Court Case arise from W.P.(C) No. 21028 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 19.08.2011, whereby it was directed to take necessary steps to have the meter shifted to the newly constructed building as sought for in Ext.P2 within one week, restoring the power supply to the writ petitioner.

¶30

The Board has come up with the review petition, stating that the actual facts had been suppressed by the writ petitioner and that the matter was disposed of by this Court before filing any counter affidavit. The Contempt Case has been filed by the writ petitioner stating that the direction of this Court is still to be complied with, which amounts to contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent.

¶31

Heard the learned Standing counsel for the review

¶32

R.P. No.664/2011 & COC No. 977/2011 : 2:

¶33

petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the writ petitioner at length.

¶34

The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that the case happened to be disposed of on the basis of the submission made by the writ petitioner that the connection was provided to the writ petitioner by the Board with Consumer No. 18988 under the ‘Kudil Jyothi’ scheme as early as in 2003. It was taking note of the submission that the writ petitioner had reconstructed the building and he wanted to shift the electric meter which was temporarily placed on the post situated in the premises, this Court observed that the objection raised by the neighbouring property owner with regard to the consent to draw the electric line through the latter's property was not necessary; the line having already drawn years back, based on the consent given earlier. The case of the Board is that the writ petitioner was not a 'consumer' at any point of time and that the connection was actually registered in the name of one 'Kartyayani' under consumer No.18988. It is also stated that the documents produced by the writ petitioner including the bills do not reflect the name of the writ petitioner and that the consumer

¶35

R.P. No.664/2011 & COC No. 977/2011 : 3:

¶36

number and the name are scored off. Referring to Ext.P4 application, the learned counsel submits that the prayer of the writ petitioner was to provide a fresh connection and it was under such circumstances, that the application fee was remitted vide Ext.P3 receipt. Since it was for a new connection, the Board insisted to produce the consent of the nearby property owner to have the line crossing and to pay the necessary fees to have the matter referred for adjudication by the District Magistrate, under Section 16 of the Indain Telegraph Act. It was without revealing the actual facts that the writ petitioner approached this Court, which culminated in the judgment sought to be reviewed in the writ petition.

¶37

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the averments and allegations raised are quite wrong and unfounded in all respects; that the petitioner was the actual beneficiary of the connection provided by the Board as admitted in Annexure C produced by the respondent Board themselves and that the mistake committed by the Board in having given connection to two different persons, ie., the writ petitioner and Karthyayani, with the same consumer number cannot be

¶38

R.P. No.664/2011 & COC No. 977/2011 : 4:

¶39

attributed to.

¶40

The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that the claim of the writ petitioner that the connection was provided to the writ petitioner under the ‘kudil Jyothi’ scheme, is not correct or sustainable for the obvious reason that the said benefit is available only to persons who belong to the poorest strata of the society; to whom electric connection is provided as part of electrification of the entire villages, whereby 'one point' will be provided (for 40 to 100 W bulb). It is also stated that the said scheme does not contemplate installation of any meter, as the entire cost is being met by the Board itself. Admittedly, since the petitioner was stated as remitting the charges, allegedly based on the entries in the meter, the connection cannot be under the 'kudil jyothi' scheme.

¶41

The factual position in support of the connection is seriously disputed by both sides. In the above circumstances, it is necessary to probe the matter further, to have a proper and effective adjudication of the issues involved. As such, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the matter dealt with on merit, enabling the respondent Board to contest the matter on merits

¶42

R.P. No.664/2011 & COC No. 977/2011 : 5:

¶43

by filing a counter affidavit and also giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner to substantiate his case. Accordingly the judgment passed by this Court on 19.08.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 21028 of 2011 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file. The registry is directed to place the matter before the appropriate court. The Review Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶44

In view of the recalling of the judgment and restoration of the writ petition, the Contempt Case (C) No. 977 of 2011 stands dismissed.

¶45

sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶46

Kerala State Electricity Board and Anoth v. Sajan P.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Electricity Board and Anoth v. Sajan P.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suseela Vs Dist.Medical Officer. Kozhikode

State of Kerala Vs Eldhose

Ravi Sankar Vs Mr K.v.Shenoy

Hashir Abdulla Vs University of Calicut and Others

C.Rafeek Vs the Port Conservator

Zacharia Saji Vs Mahatma Gandhi University