Remanded

Abdul Jabbar K.P. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC23 Jul 2019WP(C)/14962/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the respondent's order (Ext.P6) ran contrary to earlier directions (Ext.P5) requiring the connection to be shifted to the petitioner. The matter was remanded for reconsideration in compliance with the prior judgment, allowing for further reports if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 set aside; matter remanded to KSEB for reconsideration regarding Ext.P5 directions within one month.

Abdul Jabbar K.P. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.14962 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ABDUL JABBAR K.P. AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MOIDHUNNI, KESAVATH PARAMBIL, PUTHUPONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL FYZAL BABU V.K. SHRI. BIJUMON K.K SRI.NOORJI NOUSHAD

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PONNANI, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PONNANI NAGARAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 586 3 ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.MOIDHUNNI, KESAVATH PARAMBIL, SAINABA MANZIL, NEAR MES PONNANI COLLEGE, PONNANI SOUTH P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 586

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.BIJU MARTIN SRI.M.M.SALIM SRI.P.T.SHAHUL HAMEED

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR,SC,KSEB

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.14962 of 2019

¶15

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The petitioner impugns Ext.P6, which is an order issued by the Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'KSEB' for brevity), Ponnani, ordering that the electric connection in the name of the petitioner, but which is now used to energise a motor in the property, owned by the 3^rd respondent be shifted to the name of the latter.

¶18

According to the petitioner, he had earlier approached this Court and had obtained Ext.P5 judgment, wherein, this Court had noticed that the motor shed, to which the connection is presently given, has been allotted to the share of the 3^rd respondent, consequent to a partition between them and therefore, that it was directed that his request for shifting this connection, into his own property, which is also an agricultural land, be considered. He says that, contrary to the directions in Ext.P5, the KSEB has now issued Ext.P6 shifting this connection into the name of the 3^rd respondent instead of shifting it from the property of the 3^rd respondent into his property. He therefore, prays that Ext.P6

¶19

WP(C).No.14962 of 2019

¶20

¶21

be set aside.

¶22

The learned standing counsel for the KSEB, submits that the petitioner's application for shifting of the electric connection into his property, has not been considered because he has not obtained necessary reports from the Agricultural Officer to certify that his properties are agricultural in nature. He says that, in fact, during the enquiry, conducted in obedience to the directions in Ext.P5, the petitioner informed the KSEB that he is not aware if there is any source of irrigation in his property and therefore, that there is legitimate suspicion that his property is not an agricultural one. The learned standing counsel, however, says that if the petitioner makes a fresh application, along with a proper report from the Agricultural Officer, a new connection can be given to him.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, submits that his client does not have any objection in the connection in question being shifted to the property of the petitioner but asserts that his property is being used for agricultural purpose. He says that his client has nothing more to comment on the controversies in this

¶24

WP(C).No.14962 of 2019

¶25

¶26

case.

¶27

When I consider the afore submissions and the contents of Ext.P6, I must say that the said order appears to run contrary to the directions in Ext.P5 judgment. This is because, what was directed in Ext.P5 was to consider shifting of the connection presently in the property owned by 3^rd respondent, into the petitioner's property; but what has been ordered in Ext.P6 is that the present connection be changed into the name of the 3^rd respondent. Obviously, this is not what was intended and directed in Ext.P5 judgment.

¶28

In the afore circumstances, I am certain in my mind that Ext.P6 should fail and that the competent Authority of the KSEB must reconsider the matter adverting specifically to the directions in Ext.P5 judgment. I make it clear that, while completing the exercise as ordered in Ext.P5, if any further report is required any concerned Authority, including the competent Agricultural Officer, the KSEB will be at liberty to direct the petitioner to produce the same, so that further action can be taken in confirming with the applicable Statutes, Rules and Regulations.

¶29

WP(C).No.14962 of 2019

¶30

¶31

The afore exercise shall be completed by the KSEB

¶32

as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month

¶33

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

¶39

WP(C).No.14962 of 2019

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE CARD ISSUED IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL ELECTRICITY CONNECTION IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER'S MOTHER WITH CONSUMER NO.12139 ISSUED FROM THE ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PONNANI.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF AMOUNT REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS THE SHIFTING OF THE AGRICULTURAL ELECTRICITY CONNECTION IN HIS NAME.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SHIFT THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION (CONSUMER NO.4179) TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.C.NO.9981/2018
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 12.03.2019 IN W.P.C.NO.9981/2018
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.9981/18/2019-20/124 DATED 20.05.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Abdul Jabbar K.P. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jabbar K.P. 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

Rajeevan K. Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Thomas P.J. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

K.K.Joseph Vs the Authorized Officer, Under the Sarfaesi Act, Federal Bank Ltd.

Raju Lukose Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Unni Vs State of Kerala

M.S.Anil Vs the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-Operative Societies