Allowed

Suneesh Kumar v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC22 Jun 2016WP(C)/1701/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted the petitioner four weeks to remit due amounts and enter into an agreement with the Kerala State Electricity Board to regularise their cable network. Failure to do so entitles the Board to dismantle the cables.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted four weeks' time to remit amounts and enter into an agreement with the Board for execution of the agreement.

Suneesh Kumar Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1701 of 2016 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUNEESH KUMAR, AGED 49, S/O. SREEDHARAN, THENGUMTHARAYIL, CHELIKUZHI P.O., EZHAMKULAM, PROPRIETOR TECHNOCRATS CABLE T.V., EZHAMKULAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶11

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ADOOR, PIN-691 523.

¶12

BY SRI.JAICE JACOB, SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

WP(C).No. 1701 of 2016 (K) ---------------------------

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 : COPY OF THE DEMAND/DISCONNECTION NOTICE DTD.15.12.2015.

¶19

P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.9.3.2015.

¶20

P3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.31342/15 DTD.14.10.2015. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.23.12.2015.

¶21

P5 : COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DTD.8.1.2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶23

------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 1701 of 2016

¶30

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4,

¶33

by which he has been informed since he did not remit the legally due to the Board, the cable will be dismantled after 31.12.2015. Petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation requesting the Board that he himself will remove the cables from the electric poles of the Board. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court and an interim stay was granted on condition of the petitioner remitting Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that the said amount had been deposited.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he should be permitted to regularise the cable network by entering into appropriate agreement with the Board.

¶35

Having regard to the aforesaid submission, primarily

¶36

it is for the Board to decide whether the agreement has to be entered into with the petitioner and at what rate. The Board is

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 1701 of 2016

¶38

also entitled to seek such charges, which is pending arrears.

¶39

In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶40

(i) Petitioner is granted four weeks' time to enter into appropriate agreement with the Board, after remitting the amounts demanded by the Board, for execution of the agreement.

¶41

(ii) If the agreement is not executed within the aforesaid period, it shall be open for the Board to dismantle the cables and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶42

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶43

Scl/22.06.2016

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 1701 of 2016

¶45

-3-

Suneesh Kumar v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneesh Kumar v. the 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

M/S.Shreyas (Ernakulam) Vs State Bank of Travancore

Union Bank of India Vs S. Sudheerdas

S.Anil Kumar Vs Authorized Officer, Tamil Mercantile Bank Ltd.

The Kerala State Cashew Evelopment Corp. Vs Labour Court,Kollam

A.R.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Arjun Associates Vs the Authorized Officer & Area Manager