Dismissed

V.M.Majeed v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC18 Jul 2016WA/1333/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against interim order declining stay on extension of supply cut-off notice issued to petitioner under Electricity Supply Code, 2014. Court declined interference holding appeal dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

V.M.Majeed Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016/27TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶6

WA.No. 1333 of 2016 (L) IN WP(C).22116/2016

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 22116/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30-06-2016

¶8

APPELLANT : PETITIONER :-

¶9

V.M.MAJEED, S/O. MUHAMMED UNNI, VELLAKUDY HOUSE, KANDANTHARA, ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶11

RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS:-

¶12

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL OFFICER, REVENUE, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VENGOLA.

¶14

THE KERALA STATE REGULATORY COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

BY SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, KSEB

¶16

BY SRI.JAICE JACOB, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WA.No. 1333 of 2016 (L) IN WP(C).22116/2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:-

¶21

ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.6.2016 IN W.P.(C)No.22116/2016. ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD.17.3.2016 IN W.P.(C)No.9155/2007.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE:- NIL.

¶23

True copy

¶24

P.A to Judge

¶25

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶26

W.A.No.1333 of 2016

¶27

-----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶30

This appeal is against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.22116/2016 whereby the interim relief sought for was declined.

¶31

The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant/petitioner

¶32

with the following prayers;-

¶33

(i) Declare that Clause (e) of Regulation 138 (1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 is ultra vires Section 50 & Section 56 read with Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶34

(ii) Declare that Clause (e) of Regulation 138 (1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 is in violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶35

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same.

¶36

W.A.No.1333 of 2016

¶37

¶38

An interim relief was also prayed for in the following

¶39

terms:-

¶40

“For the reasons stated in the writ petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of Ext.P3 and all proceedings pursuant thereto, pending disposal of the writ petition.”

¶41

The challenge was mainly with regard to the constitutional validity of Clause (e) of Regulation No.138(1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 which according to the appellant/writ petitioner was contrary to the mandate of Sections 50 and 56, read with Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The appellant/writ petitioner who is running a plywood industry in the area, admittedly is not having the 'consent to operate' issued by the Pollution Control Board and in the said circumstance, Ext.P3 notice was issued by the respondent/Electricity Board on 25.6.2016 causing to disrupt the power supply. This made the petitioner to rush to this Court by filing the writ petition with the prayers as mentioned above.

¶42

W.A.No.1333 of 2016

¶43

¶44

The case projected by the appellant/petitioner is that the establishment was being run by the appellant deploying quite a number of workmen and that no instance of pollution is there in the premises. It is stated that the petitioner/appellant is having all the requisite licenses/clearance from all the authorities concerned, but for the certificate to be issued by the Pollution Control Board granting the 'consent to operate'. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had approached the Pollution Control Board as early as on 9.5.2013 seeking for issuance of 'consent to operate'; which however was never acted upon and hence the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.16795/2016 for issuing a direction to the Pollution Control Board to pass appropriate orders in this regard. When the matter came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge, it was noted that a 'Public Interest Litigation' filed as W.P.(C)No.9155/2007 was pending before a Division Bench of this Court and in the said circumstance, the above Writ Petition was directed to be tagged along with the 'Public Interest Litigation. Orders are yet to be

¶45

W.A.No.1333 of 2016

¶46

¶47

passed in the above Writ Petition. It is in the above background that the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ Petition as aforesaid, i.e., W.P.(C)No.22116/2016 seeking for immediate intervention of this Court; simultaneously praying for an interim order. Referring to the sequence of events the learned Single Judge has declined the relief vide Annexure-A, which made the appellant to approach this Court by filing this appeal.

¶48

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board as well.

¶49

It cannot be a matter of dispute, the running of various plywood industries in the area causing pollution had attracted the attention of the Supreme Court and appropriate directions have been issued to enable this Court to have the matter considered, as taken note of by a Division Bench in Annexure B order dated 17.3.2016. It has been ordered by the Apex Court that no fresh license shall be issued to the Saw mills and Wood based industries in the area, till the matter is finally decided by this Court. It was accordingly, that the parties were

¶50

W.A.No.1333 of 2016

¶51

¶52

heard and Annexure B order was passed on 17.3.2016, which is still in operation.

¶53

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that necessary steps have already been taken by the appellant to get his version also considered by the Bench when the above matter is taken up for hearing. Even otherwise, W.P.(C) No.9155/2007 preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner admittedly, stands tagged along with the above 'Public Interest Litigation' and in the said circumstance, if at all any interim relief is to be obtained, the prayer could be brought up before the concerned Bench dealing with the issue, by way of appropriate proceedings. It is also open for the appellant to move the learned Single Judge, referring to the sequence of events and as to the pendency of the matter before the Division Bench and to get appropriate orders for causing the grievance to be considered at appropriate level. This Court finds that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly within the four walls of the law and does not warrant any interference. Without prejudice

¶54

W.A.No.1333 of 2016

¶55

¶56

to the rights and liberties of the appellant to pursue necessary

¶57

steps as aforesaid, interference is declined and the appeal stands dismissed.

¶58

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶59

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶60