Allowed

Selvi @ Antoniammal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Nov 2020WP(C)/15764/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction for an electric connection to her residence disputed by plantation company officials. The court held that while she lacks ownership papers, her possession was lawful enough for supply purposes, directing respondents to decide her application without demanding ownership certificates, NOC, or revenue possession proof.

What did the court decide?

Respondents shall consider the petitioner's application for electric connection within 15 days without insisting on ownership certificate, NOC, or possession certificate, subject to the outcome of the

Selvi @ Antoniammal Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.15764 OF 2020(U)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SELVI @ ANTONIAMMAL, AGED 43 YEARS W/O.VIJI K., DOOR NO.XIV/145, SEVENMALLAY- OTTAPARAI DIVISION, LETCHMI ESTATES, KANNAN DEVAN HILLS, SEVENMALLAY, MUNNAR P.O., DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI-685612.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.ANZIL SALIM

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685603.

¶12

3 THE SUB COLLECTOR AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI-685613.

¶13

4 KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY PVT. LTD., KDHP HOUSE, NH 49, MUNNAR KDH VILLAGE, PIN-685612, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

5 THE SENIOR MANAGER (ENGINEERING), M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY PVT. LTD., KDHP HOUSE, NH 49, MUNNAR KDH VILLAGE, PIN-685612.

¶15

6 MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685612, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.ISAAC THOMAS R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM R4-5 BY ADV. SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS R4-5 BY ADV. SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA R4-5 BY ADV. SMT.ZAINAB ZEBAIBRAHIM P.M.

¶17

GP SRI RON BASTIN.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.15764 OF 2020 2

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 26th day of November 2020

¶22

The petitioner in the writ petition prays for a direction to

¶23

respondents and more particularly, respondent Nos.4 and 5 to provide electric connection to the residence of the petitioner with door No.XIV/145 of Munnar Grama Panchayat.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶25

To substantiate the contentions raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 27 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Supply Code'). By drawing my attention to the plaint in O.S. No.210 of 2010 of Munsiff's Court, Devikulam, filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 for eviction of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that entry of the petitioner in the premises wherein supply of electric energy is sought, was perfectly legal and therefore, respondent Nos.4 and 5 cannot deny supply of electric energy to the premises of the petitioner. It is further argued that three children of the petitioner are students and therefore supply of electric energy to the

¶26

WP(C).No.15764 OF 2020 3

¶27

premises under occupation of the petitioner is inevitable.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner had submitted application for supply of electric energy, but the petitioner could not obtain ownership certificate as according to the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the building is owned by them and therefore it is not possible to get ownership certificate from the contesting respondent Nos.4 and 5. 5 . Learned counsel appearing for r espondent Nos.4 and 5 opposed the petition by contending that even Regulation 27 of the Supply Code mandates making application by the lawful occupant in the prescribed form and the petitioner has not made any such application. It is further argued that as per the provisions of Regulation 45 of the Supply Code, the application for supply of electric energy is to be accompanied by the possession certificate issued by the revenue authorities. My attention is also drawn to Ext.R4(a) letter dated 23.08.2016 issued by the Sub Collector, Devikulam directing the electric supply company not to supply electric connection to the buildings constructed in KDH village without obtaining the NOC from the District Collector/Sub Collector. It is thus argued that as the petitioner has failed to comply with necessary formalities, she is not entitled to supply of

¶29

WP(C).No.15764 OF 2020 4

¶30

electric connection.

¶31

I have considered the submissions so advanced and

¶32

perused the materials placed before me.

¶33

Undoubtedly, the petitioner is in possession of the premises to which supply of electric energy is sought. The plaint in O.S. No.212/2010 filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 makes it clear that the subject premises were earlier occupied by one Viji as permitted by respondent Nos.4 and 5 themselves. As per the stand taken in the suit filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, the possession of Viji in the property was permissive. These respondents further stated in their plaint that subsequently V iji vacated the building and recently it is noted that the defendant in the suit (petitioner herein) is in occupation of the said premises. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 further made it clear in their plaint that the defendant in the suit, i.e, the petitioner herein is their temporary worker and she is occupying the premises without permission.

¶34

As against this, stand of the petitioner in the written statement filed before the concerned court is to the effect that the building in possession was constructed by late Sri.Murugan, who happens to be the grandfather of the husband of the defendant,

¶35

WP(C).No.15764 OF 2020 5

¶36

Viji . It is further contended by the petitioner that late Sri.Murugan had trespassed into the vacant Government Puramboke land in the year 1965 and constructed a shed and started residence therein. Subsequently Sri.Kailasam started possessing the said premises. The said Kailasam is the father of Viji. Thereafter Viji and the petitioner continued their possession in the said building.

¶37

It is thus clear from the pleadings in the suit that Viji, who happens to be husband of the petitioner was allotted with the subject premises for the purpose of residence by respondent Nos.4 and 5. This is the specific stand of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Undisputably, Viji is the husband of the petitioner. It is thus clear that entry of the petitioner in the subject premises is lawful, atleast at the inception.

¶38

Regulation 27 of the Supply Code requires that the licensee should supply electric energy, if an application in the proper form is submitted either by the owner or the lawful occupier of the premises. Pleadings of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the suit filed by them reflects that entry of the plaintiff in the subject premises was lawful and as such, requirement of Regulation 27 is substantively complied by the petitioner. Section

¶39

WP(C).No.15764 OF 2020 6

¶40

43 of the Electricity Act 2003 stipulates that the licensee shall on application by the owner or occupier of the premises provide supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. It is thus clear that Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003 does not require that the occupier must in all cases be a lawful occupier of the premises.

¶41

Ext.P7 communication of respondent Nos.4 and 5 makes it clear that there was an application for power connection by the petitioner though it might not be in a prescribed form. Contention of the petitioner is to the effect that she is not in a position to obtain ownership certificate because of the pending suit between the parties. It needs to be kept in mind that even respondent Nos.4 and 5 who happens to be the licensees have come up with a stand in their suit filed before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam that the petitioner is in occupation of the subject premises.

¶42

Reliance on Ext.R4(a) communication dated 23.08.2016 issued by the Sub Collector is totally misplaced, because the building in occupation of the petitioner was not constructed either on 01.08.2016 or subsequent thereto. The Circular referred to in the said Ext.R4(a)communication is that of

¶43

WP(C).No.15764 OF 2020 7

¶44

01.08.2016. The suit itself was filed for eviction of the petitioner by respondent Nos.4 and 5 way back in the year 2010. Similarly,

¶45

it is seen that Munnar Grama Panchayat has already issued ownership certificate in respect of the subject premises in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Requirement of Clause (1) (vi) of Regulation 45 of the Supply Code in respect of possession certificate from revenue authorities would not come in the way of the petitioner in getting supply of electric energy, because it is within the knowledge of the licensees cum owner, i.e, respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the petitioner is possessing the subject premises.

¶46

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶47

The petitioner to submit application in the prescribed proforma as required under Regulation 27 of the Supply Code to respondent Nos.4 and 5, within a period of 15 days from today and respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall consider and decide the said application as per the provisions of law, without insistence of ownership certificate, NOC, possession certificate from revenue authorities or proof of being lawful occupier of the subject premises. The outcome of the application for supply of electric

¶48

WP(C).No.15764 OF 2020 8

¶49

energy shall be subject to the result of the pending suit between the parties. Needless to mention that the learned civil court shall

¶50

not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court, while deciding the suit.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

ajt

WP(C).No.15764 OF 2020 9

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD WITH NO.1629027245 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P1(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER, HER FAMILY AND HER HOUSE.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.212 OF 2010, WHICH IS NOW RENUMBERED AS O.S.NO.260/2019 AND PENDING BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 31.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT IN FILED IN M.T.O.P.110/2014.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.3.2014 SEEKING THE ABSTRACT OF BUILDING TAX REGISTER.
EXHIBIT P3(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P3.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 31.3.2014 ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 29.4.2014.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 5.2.2017 FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUNNAR.
EXHIBIT P6(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE DYSP MUNNAR ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 9.4.2018.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THIS REGARD BEFORE THE MINISTER OF DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY, DATED 4.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF COMPLAINT DATED 22.4.2019 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE LEGAL
	SERVICES AUTHORITY/SUB COURT, DEVIKULAM.

¶59

WP(C).No.15764 OF 2020 10

¶60

EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.6.2020.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD OF THE SAID DAUGHTER NAMED VITHYA, ISSUED BY THE THIRAVIUM COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, THENI.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE THIRAVIUM COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, THENI.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF EXAMINATION RESULT OF THE PETITIONER'S SON VIJAYAKUMAR.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED BY THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 25.7.2020.
RESPONDENT'S/S EX	HIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(a)	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 23.08.2016 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM.

Selvi @ Antoniammal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvi @ Antoniammal v. State of Kerala

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

Saidalikutty T.P Vs the Federal Bank

Mini Benny Vs Union of India

Abdul Jabbar M. Vs the Assistant Engineer

P.G.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs the Managing Director

Tinda Jinsan, Vs Union of India

Thomas M.A. Vs the State of Kerala