Allowed

Atlas Celestial Park Apartment Owners Association, v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC2 Dec 2022WP(C)/10495/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two writ petitions filed by an Apartment Owners Association against the Kerala State Electricity Board. The court held that the demand for arrears must be kept in abeyance for three years from the date of the claim before the Resolution Professional. It also directed the issuance of the lift license without an Electrical Inspector report.

What did the court decide?

The demand for arrears to be kept in abeyance for three years from the date of claim before the Resolution Professional; the license for the lift to be renewed within one month without requiring an El

Atlas Celestial Park Apartment Owners Association, Vs… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10495 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

ATLAS CELESTIAL PARK APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.EKM/TC/885/2014, N.S.S.JUNCTION, NAYATHODE P.O., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 572 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.SAJITH JOHN. BY ADVS. LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) SMT.T.A.LUXY SHRI.SURESH SUKUMAR SRI.ANZIL SALIM SHRI.MANUEL K.M. SHRI.SETHU KRISHNA R.S. SHRI.CHACKO MATHEWS K. SMT.NOORUNISSA K.A.

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDHYUDHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 542. 3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL SECTION, KALADY, PIN - 683 574. 4 THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶9

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶10

¶11

5 ATLAS GOLD TOWNSHIPS(INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. NEAR FEDERAL BANK, VAPPALASSERRY P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 572 REPRESENTED BY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL, JASIN JOSE. BY ADVS. SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR.R. B.PRAMOD

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).25548/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶16

PRESENT

¶17

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶18

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶19

WP(C) NO. 25548 OF 2021

¶20

PETITIONER/S:

¶21

ATLAS CELESTIAL PARK APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, REG NO. EKM/TC/885/2014, N.S.S. JUNCTION, NAYATHODE P.O., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM 683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI. SAJITH JOHN. BY ADVS. LAL K.JOSEPH P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) T.A.LUXY SURESH SUKUMAR ANZIL SALIM CHACKO MATHEWS K.

¶22

RESPONDENT/S:

¶23

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD - VYDHYUDHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶24

2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR, 683 542.

¶25

3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KALADY 683 574.

¶26

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶27

¶28

4 THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶29

5 ATLAS GOLD TOWNSHIPS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD, NEAR FEDERAL BANK , VAPPALLASSERRY P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM 683 572, REPRESENTED BY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL JASIN JOSE.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).10495/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶33

AMIT RAWAL, J.

¶34

------------------------------------

¶35

WP(C) Nos.10495 and 25548 of 2021

¶36

-------------------------------------

¶37

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2022

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

This judgment of mine shall dispose of two writ petitions, namely WP(C) Nos.10495 and 25548 of 2021, preferred by the very same petitioner. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, WP(C) No.10495/2021 will be called as the first writ petition, and WP(C) No.25548/2021 as the second writ petition.

¶40

The reliefs sought for in the first writ petition are

¶41

as follows:

¶42

“i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order quashing Ext-P5 communication dated 10/3/2021 to the extent it insists for the re submission of the Compliance Report & Completion Report by the 5th respondent,

¶43

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶44

¶45

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the respondents 1 to 4 to accept the, Compliance Report & Completion Report for the temporary installation of 500KVA DG set submitted by the petitioners and such other applications which are deemed necessary to provide electric connections separately to the apartment owners in the residential complex of the petitioner and for effective implementation of Ext.P3 Scheme within a specific time frame.

¶46

iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the respondents 1 to 4 not to insist for arrears of electricity charges from the petitioner for the purpose of granting electric connection to each apartment owners, while implementing Exhibt P3 Scheme.

¶47

iv) Declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the arrears of electricity charges demanded against the 5th respondent in Ext P8.”

¶48

Likewise, following are the reliefs sought for in the second

¶49

writ petition:

¶50

“i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P10 and Ext.P11,

¶51

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the respondents 1 to 4 to implement Ext. P3 Scheme for grant of LT connections to the individual owners of the petitioner in view of Exts.

¶52

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶53

¶54

P2 and P4 within a specific time frame.

¶55

iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the respondents 1 to 4 not to insist for arrears of electricity charges covered by Ext P10 and Ext P11 from the petitioner for the purpose of granting electric connection to each apartment owners, while implementing Exhibit P3 Scheme.”

¶56

3. Insofar as the first and second prayers in the first

¶57

writ petition are concerned, they had been taken care of by

¶58

this Court by granting interim order dated 27.4.2021, which

¶59

reads as under:

¶60

“Admit.

¶61

The learned Government Pleader takes notice for R4. The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for R1 to R3. Issue notice to R5.

¶62

Since by Ext.P7, the 5^th respondent has become incapable of making any application, petitioner, as a body of apartment owners are permitted to submit compliance report and completion report and all other applications on behalf of the 5^th respondent. To enable the petitioner to do the above, Ext.P5 shall stand stayed until further orders.”

¶63

¶64

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶65

As far as relief no.(iv) in the first writ petition is concerned, which is for a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay the arrears of electricity charges demanded against the 5^th respondent in Ext.P8, the same has been put at rest for the reason that by virtue of the judgment, produced as Ext.P4 in the first writ petition, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1673/2019 dated 29.1.2021, the individual owners have been issued LT connections and have also submitted a Bank Guarantee (produced as Ext.P14 in the first writ petition) in terms of the provisions of subRegulation (3) of Regulation 40 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2014.

¶66

In the second writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner is only for restraining the respondents from demanding the arrears from them.

¶67

This case has a checkered history, which has been

¶68

¶69

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶70

taken care of and noted extensively by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ext.P1 order dated 23.11.2017 in WP(C) No.15370/2017 and a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment dated 29.1.2021 in W.A.No.1817/2019 and connected cases. The Division Bench considering the predicament of the petitioner therein noted the following observations:-

¶71

“19. In the instant case, none had applied seeking permission for a single point supply as contemplated under the provisions mentioned above. The original application, on the basis of which HT connection was initially granted, a copy of which was produced by the learned Standing Counsel, pursuant to the direction of this Court, shows that the application was made on 01.10.2015 for three buildings bearing Nos.XIV/188A1 for an area of 286.58 sq.m, Nos.XIV/188A2, for an area of 162.44 sq.m and building No. XIV/188A3 for an area of 15.03 sq.m. In the tariff category shown in the approval order, there are overwritings and erasures, that are visible even in the photocopy. On the basis of an application for three apartments in the apartment complex, HT connection is stated to have been given for the

¶72

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶73

¶74

entire complex for all the apartments. It raises doubts on the manner in which such connections were provided. None of the individual apartment owners, other than the three building numbers mentioned earlier, had ever applied independently for the grant of HT connection to their respective apartments. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the initial grant of HT connection to the apartment complex constructed by the 4th respondent bearing the name ‘Atlas Celestial Park’ was not legally valid.”

¶75

It is contended that the Bank Guarantee has been submitted later on, for, the respondent-Electricity Board had been insisting the petitioner for clearing of the arrears. Though Bank Guarantee deemed to have been submitted under protest strictly in compliance of the provisions of subRegulation (3) of Regulation 40 of the Electricity Supply Code, but the fact remains that during the interregnum, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code proceedings were initiated against the builder, Atlas Gold Township (India) Private Ltd.,

¶76

¶77

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶78

and Resolution Professional has been appointed. In one of

¶79

the communications submitted by the petitioner to the Resolution Professional, it surfaced that the KSEB had preferred a claim in respect of the arrears of electricity of the erstwhile Company.

¶80

It is discerned that once KSEB had taken steps for

¶81

recovery, arrears cannot be recovered from the petitioner.

¶82

Period of three years is to be reckoned from the date of submission of the claim before the Resolution Professional. Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 40 reads as under:

¶83

“ 40. Recovery of arrears relating to the previous consumer.-

¶84

xxx xxx xxx

¶85

(3) If a purchaser or lessee or occupier of such premises requires a new connection, as the earlier connection given to the previous consumer in that premises has already been disconnected and dismantled on the ground of outstanding dues of the previous consumer, new connection shall not be denied to such purchaser or lessee or occupier of the premises provided he furnishes a deposit which shall be

¶86

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶87

¶88

equal to the arrears of electricity charges and other liabilities if any, excluding interest thereon, till the licensee obtains from the appropriate legal forum an order on the recovery of arrears and other liabilities or till the licensee settles the arrears and liabilities with the previous consumer or till completion of three years whichever is less:

¶89

Provided that on obtaining order from the appropriate legal forum on the recovery of such arrears of electricity charges and other liabilities, or on settlement of the arrears and liabilities by the licensee with previous consumer or on completion of three years as aforesaid, the licensee shall release the entire amount of deposit furnished by such owner or lessee or occupier of the premises, along with interest at bank rate as on the date of furnishing such deposit.”

¶90

On scrutiny of the aforementioned Regulation, it is evident

¶91

that once the licensee has taken steps to recover arrears, the period of three years will have to be reckoned from the date when the step is taken. After completion of three years from the date on which the step has been taken, the petitioner shall be entitled to seek release of the entire

¶92

¶93

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶94

amount of the deposit, in view of the proviso to subRegulation (3), which mandates the licensee to release the entire amount of deposit furnished by the owner or occupier of the premises along with interest as on the date of submission of the claim before the Resolution Professional. Therefore, the demand raised by the respondents for claiming the arrears is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and, at best, to be kept in abeyance for a period of three years.

¶95

It is then contended that during the pendency of these writ petitions supervening facts occurred, which necessitated the petitioner to prefer I.A. No.2/2022 in the first writ petition reflecting furnishing of Ext.P14 Bank Guarantee on 15.6.2022 and Ext.P16 demand notice dated 27.7.2022 and Ext.P17 reply dated 3.8.2022. The petitioner submitted Ext.P15 application dated 24.2.2022 for renewal

¶96

¶97

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶98

of the licence for working of the lift/escalator at the premises and deposited a sum of Rs.13,230/- on 24.2.2021. The respondents responded to the aforementioned request vide Ext.P16 communication dated 27.7.2022 stating that a sum of Rs.5,61,592/- is due as the arrears on account of the periodical inspection of electrical installations at the premises, which had not been remitted and called upon the petitioner to remit the same into the Government Treasury or through on-line under a specific head, failing which the electric connection to the premises will be disconnected without further notice. The petitioner responded to the aforementioned communication vide Ext.P17 dated 3.8.2022 pointing out the facts that the builder company is nonexistent and is under liquidation process in NCLT; KSEB has already filed a claim for the arrears before the NCLT; and there is already an interim order passed in the first writ

¶99

¶100

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶101

petition from which it was understood that the builder has become incapacitated from making any application and therefore, permission be granted to the petitioner to submit the compliance report and application, if any, on behalf of the builder. Despite that the respondents are insisting the petitioner for remittance of periodical inspection charges. As per the provisions of Regulation 43 of Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulations, 2010, the Electrical Inspector is required to conduct an inspection to ensure that electric supply line or apparatus of voltage exceeding 650 V are placed in position, properly joined, duly completed and examined and only thereafter if all the measures are in tact for the purpose of safety and achievement of the provisions of the Act, shall submit a report for commencement of the supply. The said provision would not be applicable, for the

¶102

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶103

¶104

reason that the HT connection with consumer Code 8/7135 was not issued to the petitioner-Association, but was in the name of the builder-Company in respect of three flats, which was disconnected and there is no challenge to the same; whereas the members of the petitioner-Association have been given separate LT connections, for which Bank Guarantee has been submitted. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the petitioner does not require, as per the provisions of the Regulation aforementioned, inspection of the Electrical Inspector. The said exercise is already over. It is not a case of recommencement of the supply. In other words, supplies were different. HT supply was only with regard to three flats, whereas LT supply is for all the individual flat owners.

¶105

On the other hand, Mr.Pramod, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the KSEB, submitted that the

¶106

¶107

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶108

predicament of the KSEB is writ large as there had been a tussle between the association and the builder. The builder had not submitted compliance report nor had strictly complied with the provisions of Regulation 49, providing the builder to construct the internal distribution network, including the service line, transformer, switchgear etc., as per the scheme approved. The scheme was approved. But the builder made default in making the actual or minimum consumption charges of HT connections. It was in that circumstances, demand as per the provisions of Regulation 40 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 was raised. LT consumers cannot seek waiver of the arrears of electricity charges, which has become due from the premises from its members while implementing Ext.P3 scheme. The HT connection with consumer Code 8/7135 was dismantled strictly in terms of the judgment in W.A.No.1673/2019 and

¶109

¶110

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶111

connected cases for the purpose of regularisation of the entire connections as per the Scheme (Ext.P3) approved by the Electrical Inspector on 22.7.2015, by the individual owners of the apartment. The arrears due on account of dismantling of HT connection as on 29.6.202 1 are Rs.17,66,091/- along with interest as o n 10.3.2021, which pertains to defaulted charges payable by the consumers of the apartment complex. In fact, the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of the builder, nor is there any change of the premises or the occupants. The security deposit of Rs.11,59,300/- with the KSEB by the builder had already been adjusted. Since the connections are actually reconnection of the disconnected connections of the premises, payment of all dues have to be paid by the consumer. All these circumstances justify the demand. Sri.Pramod also submitted that even though the arrears

¶112

¶113

WP(C)s 10495 & 25548/2021

¶114

were due since long, no delay can be attributed to the KSEB

¶115

for raising the demand for the reason that owing to the Covid pandemic and subsequent stay orders granted by various courts, the demand was not raised.

¶116

In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that even though the arrears are with effect from 2015, but after adjusting the deposit, the actual arrears are with effect from 2019. If at all the KSEB has any grievance, they could have raised this point in Writ

¶117

Appeal, which came to be decided only on 29.1.2021.

¶118

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶119

From the operative part of the judgment of this Court dated 29.1.2021 rendered in W.A.No.1673/2019 and connected cases, direction was issued to the KSEB to approve the Scheme which has actually been approved on

¶120

the basis of the report dated 22.7.2016 of the Chief

¶121

¶122

¶123

Electrical Inspector. Petitioner has deposited the required charges for energisation of the electric connections. The HT connection issued in favour of the builder was dismantled. Now, the question which arises is “whether the demand of the KSEB for claiming the arrears from the petitioner is justified or is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations”. On perusal of the sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 40, it is clear that the licensee is empowered to claim the arrears by resorting to a legal remedy and till realisation of the same, while releasing the connection to the other occupiers of the building, for protecting the interest, it can always ask to furnish guarantee. The petitioner has already submitted a Guarantee in terms of the aforementioned Regulation. The contents of the e-mail dated 8.11.2021 [Ext.P7(b) in the second writ petition] reveals that the KSEB has already submitted a claim before

¶124

¶125

¶126

the Resolution Professional appointed for managing the affairs of the Company which is under insolvency proceedings before the competent court. Thus, for all intents and purposes, respondents have already taken the steps to recover the arrears and the period of three years shall be reckoned from the date on which such steps were taken. Till such time, the interest of the KSEB is to be protected. As per the proviso to the aforementioned subRegulation (3), even in the absence of any settlement of the liabilities, the licensee is mandatorily required to release the Bank Guarantee after the expiry of the three years. Thus, in my view, the demand of the arrears raised by the respondents from the petitioner is not sustainable and hereby ordered to be kept in abeyance till the expiry of the three years, which is to be reckoned from the date of claim before the Resolution Professional.

¶127

¶128

¶129

As far as the claim with regard to energisation of

¶130

the lift is concerned, the same was operational at the time

¶131

when the LT connections were issued. An application for renewal has already been submitted. But, the respondents are again pressing for the arrears. In view of the findings hereinabove, once the interest of the respondents has been protected, they are directed to renew the licence for energisation of the lift/escalator within a period of one month, without asking for the report of the Electrical Inspector as the provisions of Regulation 43 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulations, 2010, do not envisage any situation for the inspection of the Electrical Inspector being not the case of re-energisation of the connection, as the dismandling was of only HT connection, which still remains disconnected. Regulation 43 is extracted hereinbelow:

¶132

¶133

¶134

“ 43. Approval by Electrical Inspector . -

¶135

(1) Voltage above which electrical installations will be required to be inspected by the Electrical Inspector before commencement of supply or recommencement after shutdown for six months and above shall be as per the notification to be issued by the Appropriate Government, under clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 176, and sub-section (1) of section 162 of the Act.

¶136

(2) Before making an application to the Electrical Inspector for permission to commence or recommence supply after an installation has been disconnected for six months and above at voltage exceeding 650 V to any person, the supplier shall ensure that electric supply lines or apparatus of voltage exceeding 650 V belonging to him are placed in position, properly joined and duly completed and examined and the supply of electricity shall not be commenced by the supplier for installations of voltage needing inspection under these regulations unless the provisions of regulations 12 to 29, 33 to 35, 44 to 51 and 55 to 77 have been complied with and the approval in writing of the Electrical Inspector has been obtained by him: Provided that the supplier may energise the aforesaid electric supply lines or apparatus for the purpose of tests specified in regulation 46.

¶137

(3) The owner of any installation of voltage exceeding 650 V shall, before making

¶138

¶139

¶140

application to the Electrical Inspector for approval ofhis installation or additions thereto, test every circuit of voltage exceeding 650 V or additions thereto, other than an overhead line, and satisfy himself that they withstand the application of the testing voltage set out in sub-regulation (1) of regulation 46 and shall duly record the results of such tests and forward them to the Electrical Inspector:

¶141

Provided that an Electrical lnspector may direct such owner to carry out such tests as he deems necessary or accept the manufacturer's certified tests in respect of any particular apparatus in place of the tests required by this regulation.

¶142

(4) The owner of any installation of voltage exceeding 650 V who makes any addition or alteration to his installation shall not connect to the supply his apparatus or electric supply lines, comprising the said alterations or additions unless and until such alteration or addition has been approved in writing by the Electrical Inspector.”

¶143

For renewal of the licence, the inspection of the Electrical

¶144

Inspector may be required. The Electrical Inspector, cannot, in view of the Government Order dated 27.3.2019 insist for

¶145

the payment being the employee of the Government. KSEB

¶146

¶147

¶148

will forward the request of the petitioner to the Electrical Inspector for inspection of the area where the lift is installed and submit status report. After submission of the report within a period of 15 days from the communication sent by the petitioner, within another 30 days, the respondents will renew the licence for the lift by overcoming def iciency, if any.

¶149

This Court is also takes note of the fact that any compliance of the Scheme which remains pending be completed as expeditiously as possible, subject to the satisfaction of the Rules and Regulations.

¶150

The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.

¶151

Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25548/2021

¶156

PETITIO	NER	EXHIBITS
Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDERS DATED 23/11/2017 IN WPC 15370/17.
Exhibit	P1	(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDERS DATED 7/12//2017 IN WPC 23730/2017.
Exhibit	P1	(B) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDERS DATED 16/1/2018 IN WPC 23730/2017.
Exhibit	P1	(C) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDERS DATED 5/2/2018 IN WPC 23730/2017.
Exhibit	P1	(D) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDERS DATED 5/7/2018 IN WPC 23730/2017.
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 20/2/2020 IN WPC NO 21563/18 PC 23739/17, WPC 15370/17.
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICAL SCHEME APPROVED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 22.07.2015.
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NOS. 1673 OF 2019 , 1743 OF 2019 1817 OF 2019 ALONG WITH ANOTHER W.A. 20 OF 2020.
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. B3- 34445/19/EIE DATED 10/3/2021 SIGNED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR.
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPANY MASTER DATED OF M/S. ATLAS GOLD TOWN SHIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.1.2019 PASSED BY NCLT IN TIBA/19/KOB/19.
Exhibit	P7	(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/7/2021 IN I.A/82/KOB/2020.
Exhibit	P7	(B) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 8/11/201 ISSUED BY THE RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL MR. JASIN.
Exhibit	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 8/11/2021

¶157

¶158

¶159

	ISSUED COMMUNICATION NO. ECP/T4/HT/ATLAS GOLD/2021-22/17 DATED 05.04.2021.
Exhibit	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27/5/2021 IN WPC NO. 10495/21.
Exhibit	P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. B.O. (FTD) NO. 822/2021 (D) (D &IT) /D- 2/GOVT. /SC/19-20/0019/2021-22 DATED 03/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE COMPANY SECRETARY (IN-CHARGE) BY THE ORDERS OF THE FULL TIME DIRECTORS OF THE KSEBL.
Exhibit	P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION BEARING NO. ECP/T4/HT-ACP APARTMENT/2021-22/2765.
Exhibit	P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.03.2021.
Exhibit	P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25/2/2021 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL OFFICER, (REVENUE) UNDER THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶160

¶161

¶162

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10495/2021

¶163

PETITIO	NER EXHI	BITS
EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23/11/2017 IN WPC 15370/17.
EXHIBIT	P1A	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 7/12/2017 IN WPC 23730/2017.
EXHIBIT	P1B	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16/1/2018 IN WPC 23730/2017.
EXHIBIT	P1C	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 5/2/2018 IN WPC 23730/2017.
EXHIBIT	P1D	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 5/7/2018 IN WPC 23730/2017.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 20/2/2020 IN WPC 23730/17.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICAL SCHEME APPROVED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 22/07/2015.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.A.NOS.1673 OF 2019, 1743 OF 2019, 1817 OF 2019 ALONG WITH ANOTHER W.A.240 OF 2020.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B3- 34445/19/EIE DATED 10/3/2021 SIGNED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR.
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPANY MASTER DATA OF M/S.ATLAS GOLD TOWNSHIP (INDIA) PVT.LTD.
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/11/2019 PASSED BY NCLT IN TIBA/19/KOB/19.
EXHIBIT	P7A	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/7/2020 IN I.A./82/KOB/2020.
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.ECP/T4/HT/ATLAS GOLD/2021-22/17 DATED 05/04/2021.
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE EMAILS DATED 5.5.2017 ADDRESSED TO R2

¶164

¶165

¶166

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF EMAILS DATED 25.1.2021 ADDRESSED TO R2 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF EMAILS DATED 10.2.2021 ADDRESSED TO R2 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 8.3.2021 ADDRESSED TO R2. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 27.2.2021 Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE DATED 15.06.2022 AND TYPED COPY. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 24.02.2021. Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27/7/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND TYPED COPY. Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.08.2022 AND TYPED COPY.

Atlas Celestial Park Apartment Owners Association, v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atlas Celestial Park Apartment Owners Association, v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathyadhara Communications (P) Ltd., Vs the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner

Sarojini v Vs the Maintenance Tribunal

Bhargavi Amma, Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Abhilash.K.C., Vs the Deputy Excise Commissioner

Kerala Transport Company Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

John George Nechupadom, Vs Kerala State Information Commission