Allowed

Selvanose v. the Assistant Engineer

Kerala HC19 Feb 2019WP(C)/71/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the Kerala State Electricity Board to hold off on disconnecting the petitioner's electric supply pending the Panchayath's own demolition proceedings, ruling that the mere grant of electricity does not confer a right to uninterrupted supply if the building is unauthorized. The Court held that the Panchayath acts independently.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's writ petition is allowed with a direction to the Kerala State Electricity Board not to take further action pursuant to the impugned disconnection notice as of now.

Selvanose Vs the Assistant Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 30TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 71 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SELVANOSE

¶8

S/O. NESAN, THEKKUTHAL VEEDU, KULATHOOR, POZHIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 513. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ROBERT, S/O. SESAN, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT EVIN NIVAS, THEKKUTHAI, KULATHOOR, POZHIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 513.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, UCHAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 506.

¶12

2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, PARASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 502.

¶13

3 THE SECRETARY,

¶14

KULATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KULATHOOR, UCHAKKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 506.

¶15

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶16

KULATHOOR VILLAGE, PLAMOOTTUKADA P.O,

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 128.

¶18

5 ANEESH, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. CHELLAPPAN, VARUVILA VEEDU, VARALI KALATHIL, UCHAKKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 506.

¶19

6 GEEN THANKARAJAN, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. THANKANADAN, VARUVILA VEEDU, VARALI KALATHIL, UCHAKKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 506.

¶20

BY ADV. SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP, SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR-SC

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 71 of 2019

¶25

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of a commercial building at Pozhiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram, impugns Ext.P3 proceedings issued to him by the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited ('KSEB' for short), intimating him that they will disconnect electric supply to the building in question. The petitioner says that this intimation is completely illegal and that the KSEB has acted in violation of all applicable Statutes and Regulations.

¶28

The learned standing counsel appearing for the KSEB, on the contrary, submits that Ext.P3 was issued only as per the requisition received by the KSEB from the 3^rd respondent - Local Self Government Institution. He says that they have been intimated by the said respondent that the building in question is illegal and unauthorized and therefore, that the electric connection must be immediately disconnected. He adds that the KSEB has only acted as per this requisition and that they have no other interest in the matter.

¶29

Smt.Vinayakumari, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent – Panchayath, submits that the petitioner's building has been constructed without authority and that he has even installed a transformer in violation of the applicable Building Rules and Regulations. She says that, in fact,

¶30

WP(C).No. 71 of 2019

¶31

¶32

even the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, has, on the complaint of respondents 5 and 6, issued orders to the Panchayth, copies of which are on record as Exts.P1 and P2; and therefore, that they are now bound to act as per the provisions of law against the building in question. She says that it is in such background, that the Panchayath had requisitioned the KSEB for disconnection of the electric supply, since the building is illegal and therefore, deserving to be demolished.

¶33

Sri.Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, refutes the afore contentions of the Panchayath by saying that, as is clear from Exts.P1 and P2, there is no finding by the learned Ombudsman that the building in question is illegal; and he says that in any event of the matter, even if it is so, assuming it but without admitting it, the KSEB still does not require to disconnect the electric supply since the Panchayath is authorized by law to proceed to demolish the building and merely because an electric connection is granted to him, it would not stand in their way as per law. He says that his client is not seeking any benefit out of this connection, either in law or in equity, and that if action is taken by the 3^rd respondent for demolition of the building in terms of law, he will not claim any special right, merely based on the fact

¶34

WP(C).No. 71 of 2019

¶35

¶36

that his building has an electric connection. He adds that if there is any such unauthorized construction, his client had already applied for regularization of the same with the Panchayath.

¶37

When I evaluate the submissions as afore, it become obvious that Ext.P3 proceedings had been issued by the KSEB solely on the basis of a requisition received by them from the 3^rd respondent Panchayath, intimating them that the building in question is unauthorized and therefore, that it is being subjected to proceedings for demolition. The KSEB has acted only in terms of such requisition and therefore, I cannot find their action to be in any manner illegal or unlawful.

¶38

That said, coming to the action now proposed by the Panchayath, I see no reason why it should now wait until the electric supply is disconnected, if they have a case that the building in question is unauthorized. They are fully empowered, as per the provisions of the applicable Statutes, to take action against the building in question, including for its demolition, subject to the available remedies of the petitioner and the mere presence of an electric supply to the building in question will not impede them in taking such action nor will it hamper their jurisdiction in doing so.

¶39

In such view of the matter, I see no reason why the electric supply to the petitioner's building should be disconnected at

¶40

WP(C).No. 71 of 2019

¶41

¶42

this point of time, particularly because, when the Panchayth issues proceedings for its demolition, the petitioner will obtain no right whatsoever, either in equity or in law, from the mere factum of an electric connection having been provided to the building in question. In fact, as recorded above, this is also conceded to by Sri.Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶43

In the result, I order this writ petition and direct the KSEB not to take any further action pursuant to Ext.P3 as of now and I give full liberty to the 3^rd respondent - Panchayth to initiate and pursue all further action, as is required in law, against the building in question; and in case, it is finally decided to be demolished as per the provisions of law, the petitioner would get no right, either in law or in equity, merely because of the grant of an electric connection to him and at that time, the KSEB will be authorized to take action for disconnection, as a prelude to the demolition of the building in question, if they are so required to do by the Panchayath.

¶44

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

¶49

WP(C).No. 71 of 2019

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-10-2016 IN COMPLAINT NO. 844 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01-11-2018 IN C.M.P NO. 236 OF 2016 IN COMPLAINT NO. 844 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DISCONNECTION NOTICE CUM ORDER DATED 24-12-2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22-12-2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 01-01-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01-01-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 09-09- 2018 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF HIS BROTHER MR. ROBERT.

Selvanose v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvanose v. the Assistant Engineer

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

Venkatesh.B.M Vs Chief Information Commissioner

Sathyabhama M., Vs Kozhikkode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Balakrishnan T.v., Vs the Authorised Officer/General Manager

Jayaprakash, Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

Penda Marketing Private Ltd. Vs the Branch Manager

Muhammed Moulavi, Vs the Ponnani Co-Operative Urban Bank.