Dismissed

Anitha Kesavadas v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC27 May 2014WP(C)/13306/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought prohibition against KSEB from reconnecting electricity disputed by the Family Court. The court held that Family Court injunctions are not binding on the Board. Since the consumer had cleared dues, the Board was statutorily obligated to restore supply without verifying possession or title.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition seeking prohibition against reconnection of electricity supply was dismissed.

Anitha Kesavadas Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2014/6TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 13306 of 2014 (K)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

ANITHA KESAVADAS, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.KESAVADAS, RESIDING AT 'SRIVANI', PERANDOOR ROAD KALOOR, COCHIN - 17.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M. RAMAN KARTHA SRI.JOSEPH RONY JOSE SRI.P.E.ISHAQ

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶11

2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 542.

¶12

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECCTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PIN - 683 562.

¶13

4. K. VENUGOPAL @ VENUGOPALA PILLAI, AYINIKATT HOUSE, KIDANGAYAM, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 518.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-052014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

AMG

¶17

WP(C).No. 13306 of 2014 (K)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1588/2002 OF SRO, PUTHENCRUZ.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1589/2002 OF SRO, PUTHENCRUZ.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE EXPARTE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10.05.2010 OF INJUNCTION PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A 1705/2010 IN OP 600/2010.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3(A). TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2010 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT EXTENDING EXT.P3(A) INJUNCTION UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THE PETITION.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 08.05.2014 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDEN.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.05.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN REPLY TO EXT.P4.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

True copy

P.A. To Judge

AMG

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶33

W.P.(c) No. 13306 OF 2014-K

¶34

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF MAY, 2014.

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 reply letter issued by the 3^rd respondent to the Lawyer of the petitioner. Inter alia, the petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition restraining respondents 1 to 3 from allotting reconnection of electric supply provided under Con.No.23771, during pendency of Ext.P3 & P3 (a) orders of prohibitory injunction passed by the family Court, Ernakulam.

¶37

Petitioner claims to be owner of the building wherein the electric connection in question is provided in the name of the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent is the brother of the petitioner's former husband. Evidently there exists dispute between the petitioner and her former husband which is pending in OP No.600/2010 before the Family Court, Ernakulam. In Exts.P3 & P3 (a) interim orders, in which the 4^th respondent herein is a respondent,

¶38

W.P.(c) No. 13306/2014

¶39

-2-

¶40

the Family Court had restrained trespass and construction of any building in the property. Allegation of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 to 3 had provided an electric connection in the name of the 4^th respondent in the building in question in violation of Exts.P3 & P3 (a) orders. The petitioner had caused Ext.P4 lawyer notice to the 3^rd respondent threatening legal action in case the electricity connection is activated in violation of Exts.P3 & P3 (a) orders. The petitioner had also submitted Ext.P5 complaint before the 2^nd respondent in similar line. In Ext.P6 the 3^rd respondent had replied that the 4^th respondent has not applied for any fresh electric connection, but there existed an electric connection in the building in question since 15-03-2010 onwards. It is mentioned that the above said connection was temporarily disconnected due to nonpayment of electricity charges. But the consumer had cleared all pending dues and hence the service connection has to be restored within the time limit prescribed in the Supply Code. Therefore the petitioner was advised to

¶41

W.P.(c) No. 13306/2014

¶42

-3-

¶43

approach the appropriate court and get necessary orders for disconnection of the supply, if she has got any grievance. It is challenging the stand taken by the respondents 1 to 3 this writ petition is filed.

¶44

Heard; Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. If the authorities of the Board had violated the terms of interim injunction issued by the Family Court in Exts.P3 & P3 (a) orders, the remedy left to the petitioner is to be worked out in appropriate proceedings before the said court. The interim injunction orders issued by the Family Court are not binding on the 3^rd respondent nor had restricted the 3^rd respondent from giving any electric connection or from effecting reconnection of the disconnected electric supply in the premises in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, the respondents 1 to 3 ought to have verified about bonafideness of the possession of the building by the 4^th respondent, before effecting reconnection. But this court is of the opinion that the authorities of the Electricity Board is

¶45

W.P.(c) No. 13306/2014

¶46

-4-

¶47

not bound under any statutory provisions relating to supply of electricity to make any such verification. It is pertinent to note that, the relevant provisions enables the Electricity Board to provide electric connection to an occupier/tenant of a building, who is a person other than the owner/title holder of the said building. Here is a case where an electric connection existed prior to passing of Exts.P3 & P3 (a) orders. As rightly pointed out in Ext.P6, the 3^rd respondent is having statutory obligation to reconnect supply when the defaulted amount is paid by the consumer.

¶48

Under the above mentioned circumstances this

¶49

court do not find any illegality or infirmity with respect to the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 in reconnecting supply. Hence the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶50

However, it is made clear that the above judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking relief before the appropriate forum with respect to disconnection of supply or seeking restrainment of

¶51

W.P.(c) No. 13306/2014

¶52

-5-

¶53

reconnection. Further it is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner initiating appropriate action with respect to any alleged violation of the interim injunction orders under Exts.P3 & P3 (a).

Sd/-

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

AMG

True copy

P.A. to Judge

Anitha Kesavadas v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha Kesavadas v. Kerala State Electricity 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

V.P.Prasadu Vs the Kerala Agriculral University

Rajamony.G. Vs K.P.S.C

K.S. Rajesh Vs the Kerala State Road Transport

K.K.Abdul Azeez Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

R.P.Musthafa Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Shyju Vs Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, K.S.E.B, Palluruthi, Pin: 682 006.