Dismissed

Babu Vadakkedam v. the K.S.E.Board

Kerala HC19 Jan 2012WP(C)/6415/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a new electricity connection after acquiring a property, facing rejection due to past utility charges of the previous owner. The single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court examined the board's rejection order and the transferee's clear title.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the application for a new electricity connection was upheld; writ petition dismissed.

Babu Vadakkedam Vs the K.S.E.Board — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/29TH POUSHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 6415 of 2006 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

===========

¶8

BABU VADAKKEDAM AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN KUTTY R/O.VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, NOOLPUZHA.P.O SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)

¶10

SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) SRI.S.SHARAN,SC,K.S.E.BOARD

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

==============

¶13

1. THE K.S.E.BOARD

¶14

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM

¶15

PATTOM.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695004.

¶16

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

¶17

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE

¶18

KALPETTA.

¶19

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE KALPETTA.

¶20

R1 TO 3 BY SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB R1 TO 3 BY SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

SKV

¶23

WP(C).No. 6415 of 2006 (L)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

P1 :COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.A-2.26/2000 DATED 10.03.2005 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, NOOLPUZHA GRAMA PANCAYAT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P2 :COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BI-46/MISC/99 DATED 09.06.2005 ISSUED BY THEE TAHAZILDAR (RR), AMBALAVAYAL DATED 09.06.2005 TO THE PETITIONER THROUGH SUB REGISTRAR, SULTHAN BATHERY.

¶28

P3 :COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GB/COMPLAINT/2005-06/1719 DATED 07.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KALPETTA, TO THE PETITIONER.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKV

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J.

¶34

---------------------------------------------WP(C). No.6415 of 2006

¶35

-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2012

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner is before this Court, being aggrieved of Ext.P3 order passed by the respondent Board, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for granting a new connection has been rejected, stating that unless and until the amount due to the Electricity Board from the erstwhile owner is cleared, the request cannot be acceded to.

¶38

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

¶39

became the owner of the property / building No. NP VII/751 to 760 of Noolpuzha Grama Panchayath, as certified by the concerned local authority vide Ext.P1 certificate dated 10.3.2005 . It is stated that, when the ownership vested with the previous owner, there was an inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad in the year 1999 (the date however is disputed by the respondents stating that inspection was on 16.8.1998) and

¶40

WP(C). No.6415 of 2006

¶41

¶42

a criminal case was registered against the earlier owner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Sulthanbathery as CC No.70/1999. It is also stated that, on conclusion of the trial, the trial court acquitted the previous owner and as such, the property of the previous owner, which was earlier attached by the Revenue Authorities for realization of the amount allegedly due to the Board, was subsequently released from attachment as per Ext.P2 proceedings of the concerned Tahasildar passed on 9.6.2005. The case of the petitioner is that, no other proceeding is pending either against the previous owner or against the petitioner and this being the position, the application preferred by the petitioner for granting a fresh connection ought to have been entertained by the respondent Board, instead of having the same rejected as per Ext.P3 referring to Rule 15 E of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, which according to the petitioner cannot have any significance as on date, in view of the Electricity Act 2003 (whereby an Electricity Regulatory Commission has also

¶43

WP(C). No.6415 of 2006

¶44

¶45

been set up as provided under Section 50 of the Act) and the Electricity Supply Code which has also come into existence. The petitioner contends that, by virtue of Regulation 12 of the Electricity Supply Code, the liability to satisfy the arrears of energy charges is upon the 'previous owner' and not on the purchaser/subsequent owner. It is in the said circumstance, the impugned proceeding has been sought to be set aside in the writ petition.

¶46

The respondent have filed a counter affidavit stating that the inspection conducted by the APTS on 16.8.1988 revealed that energy was being siphoned out in a clandestine manner from the building in question, which was having the electricity connection with consumer number 779 (RLNA), by looping from the service wire before reaching the same to the meter and such energy was being used in the building bearing number 7/752 to 756 without the consent or knowledge of the Board, thereby causing a loss to the tune of

¶47

WP(C). No.6415 of 2006

¶48

¶49

Rs.72,723. It is also stated that, though the criminal case registered against the previous owner of the premises, namely Narayanankutty, ended up in acquittal, the Board is within its rights to proceed against the defaulter for realization of the amounts due in respect of energy drained out as detected by the APTS. It is further pointed out that, Regulation 12 of the Electricity Supply Code is not in force, as the same has already been stayed by the Regulatory Commission. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is none other than the son of the previous owner of the premises and that they were acting hand in glove with each other, in pursuit of their common intention.

¶50

True a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner also producing a copy of the settlement deed bearing No.3929/1996 dated 9.8.1996 as Ext.P4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said conveyance was effected by the previous owner in the name of the petitioner, as early as in 1996 and as such, the contention of the respondent Board that the conveyance was affected so as to

¶51

WP(C). No.6415 of 2006

¶52

¶53

evade the payment of electricity charges to the Board is not of any merit. In response to the said submission, the learned standing counsel for the Board submits that this exactly was the 'modus operandi' being pursued by the petitioner and his father, who were diverting the energy unauthorisedly, making unlawful gains. It was pursuant to a conscious act to get absolved from the liability in future, that the property was caused to be transferred by the previous owner in the name of his son, that is the petitioner. This Court finds considerable force in the said submission, for the reason that, nowhere in the writ petition, has the petitioner revealed that he happens to be the son of the previous owner. The picture has been painted in such a manner, as if he were a stranger to the entire transaction and is a bonafide transferee with regard to the conveyance. It is relevant to note that the property came to the hands of the petitioner only by virtue of a 'Gift Deed' executed, treating the love and affection of the petitioner towards his father as the consideration. There is no case for the petitioner that the

¶54

WP(C). No.6415 of 2006 6

¶55

property was ever 'purchased' by him. In fact, the petitioner was only a minor, at the time of execution of Ext.P4 Gift Deed. In other words, such a deed was executed by the father of the petitioner, who was the previous owner, presumably under some compelling circumstance, with regard to which, this Court does not intend to express anything further. Going by the material on record this Court cannot find fault with the steps taken by the respondent Board in having issued Ext.P3 and no legally tenable ground has been brought out to call for any interference. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

JUDGE

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. To JUDGE

vpv

WP(C). No.6415 of 2006

¶63

Babu Vadakkedam v. the K.S.E.Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Vadakkedam v. the K.S.E.Board

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

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

All Kerala Document Writers&Scribes Assn Vs State of Kerala

P.Ayyappan Vs Nivedida P.Haran and Others

M.Nirmala Devi Vs the State of Kerala

Royappan Vs Appellate Authority Under Kerala Planati

Mrs.Sukumari Narendra Menon Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner & Another