Allowed

I.V Meenakumari v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC15 Feb 2016WP(C)/5196/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought an order directing the Kerala State Electricity Board to grant electric connection to her premises. The Board refused supply citing a status quo interim order from a divorce-related case involving the petitioner's brother. The court held the interim order in the divorce case had no bearing on the supply issue and directed the Board to grant supply if the p

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent Board is directed to forthwith grant electric supply to the petitioner's premises if the application is otherwise in order and formalities are complied with.

I.V Meenakumari Vs 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5196 of 2016 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

I.V MEENAKUMARI, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.V.V.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT VELLATTVALAPPIL HOUSE, KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶9

SMT.N.DEEPA SMT.N.S.SOUMYA MOL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM 679 571.

¶12

2. I.V.BABURAJ, S/O.LATE I.G.VELAYUDHAN, IRUUPPAYIL HOUSE, POST KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM- 679 571.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, S.C

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

WP(C).No. 5196 of 2016 (Y)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶20

P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KUTTIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶21

P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX.

¶22

P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶23

P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW NOTICE ISSUED BY THE KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶24

P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶25

P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE W.P.(C).NO.38770/15 WITHOUT EXHIBITS FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C).NO.38770/15.

¶27

P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 5196 of 2016

¶35

===================================================== Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The grievance of the petitioner is essentially that the 1^st respondent Board, is not acting upon an application preferred before the Board seeking the grant of an electric connection. It is the case of the petitioner that on enquiries made with the 1^st respondent Board, she was informed that the interim order passed in a writ petition filed by the 2^nd respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner, is the reason for the denial of electric supply to the petitioner's premises.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶39

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that Ext.P8 interim order was passed by this Court in WP(C) No.38770 of 2015 that was filed by the 2^nd respondent, wherein the allegation was that steps were being taken by the petitioner herein to surrender certain portions of land, on which the building in question stood, to the Panchayat, as a condition for grant of permission to the

¶40

-2-

¶41

W.P.(C). No. 5196 of 2016

¶42

petitioner herein to effect constructions on the 1^st floor of the building. The interim order of status-quo was rendered in that context. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is essentially that, citing the aforementioned interim order, that was passed against the petitioner in WP(C) No. 28770 of 2015, the 1^st respondent Board is not granting electric connection to the construction put up by the petitioner on the ground and 1^st floor of the building. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent Board also confirms that, it was only on account of Ext.P8 order that the 1^st respondent Board thought that they were injuncted from granting electric supply to the premises of the petitioner. Taking note of the said submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, and finding that Ext.P8 order passed by this Court, would have no bearing on the issue of grant of electric supply to the premises of the petitioner, I direct the 1^st respondent Board, to forthwith grant electric supply to the premises of the petitioner, if the application preferred by the petitioner is otherwise in order and the petitioner has complied with the required formalities under the Electricity Act & Rules.

¶43

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶44

das /15.02.2016

I.V Meenakumari v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.V Meenakumari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajumon John Vs the Branch Manager

Mohanan.T Vs the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Pazhayakunnummel Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.1517 Vs the Income Tax Officer

D.Prabhakaran Vs Sri.Biju Prabhakar

M.K.Soman Vs the Authorised Officer, the Kottayam Co-Op. Urban Bank

Kerala State Women Development Corporation Vs Sini N.S