Remanded

Sarayu v. Executive Engineer

Kerala HC12 Nov 2015WP(C)/1527/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a senior citizen alleging reseised possession after cancelling a prior settlement deed, sought reconnection of electric supply cut by her son. Court directed authorities to treat it as a reconnection application, not fresh, pending civil title suit.

What did the court decide?

Electricity authority directed to consider petitioner's application as reconnection of existing connection and dispose within one month.

Sarayu Vs Executive Engineer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/21ST KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1527 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SARAYU, AGED 78 YEARS, D/O. NARAYANI, KUNNIL THEKKETHIL, THEKKE MANKUZHI, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL

¶9

SRI.C.P.RAVIKUMAR

¶10

SRI.S.MOHANAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, MAVELIKARA.

¶13

2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MODEL ELECTRICAL SECTION, KATTANAM, MAVELIKARA TALUK.

¶14

3. JAYAPALAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. CHAKRAPANI, CHYTHANYA, CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) NO.1527 OF 2012

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1893 OF 1995 OF BHARANIKKAVU SUB REGISTRY.

¶21

EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE DEED CANCELLING EXT.P1 SETTLEMENT DEED.

¶22

EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.412/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM.

¶23

EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6/1/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

K. HARILAL, J.

W.P. (C) No.1527 of 2012-M

¶29

Dated this the 12^h day of November, 2015

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner is a senior citizen, having crossed the age of 80 years, and her grievance is that the electric connection to her house stands disconnected by the 2^nd respondent, at the instance of the 3^rd respondent, who is none other the son of the petitioner.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that, she has been residing in the building which belonged to her. It is also stated that earlier, she had executed Ext.P1 settlement deed in favour of the 3^rd respondent and thereafter, she has cancelled Ext.P1 by Ext.P2 and the property and the building thereon are in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. Even

¶33

W.P. (C) No.1527 of 2012

¶34

-: 2 :-

¶35

though the 3^rd respondent has filed Ext.P3 Original Suit before the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam, the same is pending consideration only. In short, according to her, the property and the building thereon belong to her. While so, the 2^nd respondent disconnected the electric connection on the request of the 3^rd respondent. Thereafter, even though the petitioner has approached the 2^nd respondent to restore the electric supply to her residence, the 2^nd respondent has issued Ext.P4 reply refusing her request. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of her request for reconnection.

¶36

Going by the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, it is seen that the petitioner is not a defaulter in payment of electric charges; but the electric connection was disconnected at the instance of the 3^rd respondent who claims that he is the occupier of the building.

¶37

Heard.

¶38

The learned counsel Standing Counsel for the

¶39

1^st and 2^nd respondents advanced arguments in

¶40

W.P. (C) No.1527 of 2012

¶41

-: 3 :-

¶42

support of the reasons, whereby the electric connection was disconnected.

¶43

Admittedly, the petitioner is not a defaulter in payment of electric charges and no amount is due from the petitioner. Ext.P3 shows that the 3^rd respondent himself admitted that she was residing in the building. Though she has executed Ext.P1 settlement deed in favour of the 3^rd respondent, the same stands cancelled by Ext.P2 cancellation deed. The legal validity of Ext.P2 is pending consideration before the competent civil court. But the 2^nd respondent has disconnected the electric connection on the reason that the petitioner is not the occupier of the building and her application for reconnection was considered as if it was a fresh application for connection. Thus, the title and possession over the property is disputed and pending consideration before the civil court and it is evident from Ext.P3 that the petitioner also resides in the residential building.

¶44

In the above circumstances, the 1^st and 2^nd respondents cannot be justified, in considering her

¶45

W.P. (C) No.1527 of 2012 -: 4 :-

¶46

application, as if it was an application for a new connection. Considering the pendency of the title dispute, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 application as if it is an application for reconnection of the existing connection, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶50

Nan/

¶51

//true copy//

¶52

P.S. to Judge

Sarayu v. Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarayu v. Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devika Rani Vs District Collector

Abdul Salam C Vs the Valavannur Service C0-OPERATIVE Bank

Abdul Nasar Vs the Pulikkal Grama Panchayat

A.Sarojini Vs State of Kerala

Mr. Siji Paul Vs Secretary, Kanjikkuzhi Grama Panchayath

Manoj Kumara Kurup Vs the District Collector