Allowed

Reeja S.S. v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC13 Feb 2019WP(C)/3133/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a petition challenging denial of electric connection. It held that while the Panchayat can act against unauthorized portions, denying supply to a building already numbered and taxed is not tenable. Connection ordered subject to safety checks and liberty to Panchayat to demolish illegal portions.

What did the court decide?

Respondent 2 directed to grant electric connection to petitioner's premises expeditiously (within 2 weeks), subject to inspections and pending appropriate action by the Panchayat.

Reeja S.S. Vs the 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

WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 24TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3133 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

REEJA S.S., REEJA BHAVAN, MYLANKUZHI, VENJARAMMODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 607.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.SANEER SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695 004.

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 607.

¶12

3 THE NELLANADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT VENJARAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, PIN - 695 607.

¶13

SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR-SC, SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR-SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 3133 of 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner impugns Ext.P8 communication issued to her by the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (for short, 'KSEB') informing her that they have been instructed by the concerned Local Self Government Institution, namely the third respondent - Grama Panchayat, not to give her an electric connection allegedly because her construction is unauthorised.

¶19

The petitioner's specific case is that the construction in question was made based on a valid permit and that it was subsequently numbered and assessed to tax. He says, therefore, that the alleged information now received by the KSEB cannot be true and consequently that Ext.P8 is liable to be set aside.

¶20

Sri.Hanil Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent - Grama Panchayat, concedes that the petitioner's construction was originally completed based on a valid permit, but that they have now received reliable information as also complaints that she has made unauthorised extensions or modifications to the construction, thus rendering it to be illegal. He says it is only in such circumstances that the Grama Panchayat had requested the KSEB not to give an electric connection to the building in question. He adds that the Grama Panchayat was only acting as per the Government Directives

¶21

WP(C).No. 3133 of 2019

¶22

¶23

which mandates that all Local Self Government Institutions ensure that unauthorised constructions are not given electric connections by the KSEB.

¶24

Sri.A.Arunkumar, the learned standing counsel for the KSEB, submits that they have issued Ext.P8 strictly in consonance with the request made by the Local Self Government Institution and that the said order, therefore, cannot be found to be at fault. According to him, as long as the Panchayat had informed them that the construction is illegal, they have no other option but to deny electric connection.

¶25

Even when I hear the learned counsel as afore, the fact remains that the construction made by the petitioner was completed under a valid permit. The only allegation is that she has made certain modifications thereafter and therefore, I cannot understand how the Grama Panchayat now says that the entire building is illegal. Notwithstanding this, even assuming that there are portions of the building that are unauthorised, certainly it is up to the Panchayat to take appropriate action under the applicable Statutes, Rules and Regulations; either to had them demolished or to had them regularised, as is permissible in law, but to deny an electric connection does not appear to be tenable at all, particularly when the building has

¶26

WP(C).No. 3133 of 2019

¶27

¶28

already been numbered and assessed to tax, concededly, without any reservation.

¶29

Further, I am certainly of the view that merely because an electric connection is given to the building, the petitioner would not obtain locus to claim any special right, even in equity, and that the third respondent - Panchayat will be fully entitled in law to take all action, as is permissible, without in any manner being hampered by the grant of such connection.

¶30

The position in law being so, I do not see why the petitioner cannot be given an electric connection, subject to all other safety requirements being made available, and I, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant relief to the petitioner; however, subject to the condition that the third respondent - Grama Panchayat will have full liberty and entitlement to act as per law against the construction, if it is so warranted; and that the petitioner will not obtain any special right, even in equity, merely because an electric connection has been obtained by her.

¶31

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the second respondent - Assistant Engineer of the KSEB to grant electric connection to the petitioner's premises, subject to all inspections and enquiries as is required in law and if the petitioner is found otherwise entitled to it, to grant the

¶32

WP(C).No. 3133 of 2019

¶33

¶34

connection as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

I reiteratingly clarify that this will not stop the third respondent - Panchayat from taking appropriate action against the construction in question and that the petitioner will abide by all such lawful orders in future.

¶36

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

stu

¶39

WP(C).No. 3133 of 2019

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER NELLANAD. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS BUILDING NO.437/A.

¶44

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS BUILDING NO.437/B. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 17/8/2018.

¶45

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION/REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶46

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶47

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 16/10/2018.

¶48

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/11/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶49

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

P.A TO JUDGE.

Reeja S.S. v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reeja S.S. 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

Mathews George, Vs District Collector and District Magistrate

Anil.B.Menon Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.a.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Jiju K.B. Vs Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank Limited

Seema Saji, Vs the Authorized Officer, Kottayam Co-Operarive Urban Bank Limited

Beena Vasanthan Vs the Branch Manager