Disposed

Krishnakumar v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Kerala HC19 Dec 2022WP(C)/15994/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Villa owners disputed independent electricity connections and energisation of a common transformer. The court directed processing of separate connections for two villas within two months, subject to conditions, and immediate energisation of the existing transformer for the other villas. All three writ petitions were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Process separate connections for villas 6 and 8 within two months of receipt of the certified judgment; immediately energise the existing transformer supplying the other villas.

Krishnakumar Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 33323 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 RANJITH CHANDRAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O.M.N.CHANDRASEKHARAN, PLOT NO.5B, WHITE WATERS, PHASE 2, PANDITKARUPPAN ROAD, THEVARA, KOCHI -682 013, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.JACOB T.J., AGED 59, S/O JOSEPH, THOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., PIN- 682 304.

¶8

2 RAKESH MENON, S/O.RAGHUNATHA MENON, AGED 39 YEARS, POOVATHUKUNNEL, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKON TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 609, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.JACOB T.J., AGED 59, S/O JOSEPH, THOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., PIN- 682 304.

¶9

3 THOMAS JOSE, S/O KURIAN JOSE, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLA NO.35,CHOICE VILLA, NEAR CHOICE SCHOOL, TRIPUNITHURA P.O.,682 301., REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.JACOB T.J., AGED 59, S/O JOSEPH, THOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., PIN -682 304.

¶10

4 THOMAS MANJULA, W/O FRANCIS GRIGERY, AGED 42 YEARS, VELLIKARA HOUSE, KOTTANGAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-686 547, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.JACOB T.J., AGED 59, S/O JOSEPH, THOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., PIN- 682 304.

¶11

5 SATHISH KUMAR, S/O SREEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 54 YEARS, KAMAL BHAVAN, THEKKEVILA P.O., MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM- 691 01 REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.JACOB T.J., AGED 59, S/O JOSEPH, THOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., PIN- 682 304.

¶12

6 PADMANABHAN NAIR PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O VELAYUDHAN NAIR, AGED 67 YEARS, DRISYA, TC 4/198, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003 REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.JACOB T.J., AGED 59, S/O JOSEPH, THOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., PIN- 682 304.

¶13

¶14

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶15

BY ADVS. SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL K.R.VINOD

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION).

¶18

2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301.

¶19

3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, MARADU, ERNAKULAM-682 304.

¶20

4 KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SOUPARNIKA, TRIPUNITHRUA THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA -682 301.

¶21

5 GIGI S.KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O KRISHNAKUMAR, SOUPARNIKA, TRIPUNITHURA THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA- 682 301.

¶22

6 RAMACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SOUPARNIKA, TRIPUNITHURA THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA- 682 301.

¶23

7 CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL REGION, 220 KV SUBSTATION COMPOUND, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY- 683 503, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.

¶24

BY ADVS.ABHILASH K.N.

¶25

SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT(K/1049/1999) B.PREMOD, SC, KSEBL

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.15994/2022 AND 37789/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶32

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶33

WP(C) NO. 15994 OF 2022

¶34

PETITIONER:

¶35

KRISHNAKUMAR AGED 46 YEARS S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN AMBADI, RESIDING AT 29/2851 CHANDRASARAS, GANDHI SQUARE, POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 310, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O CHANDRASEKHARAN AMBADI, SOUPARNIKA, NEAR KANNAKULANGARA TEMPLE POND, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DIST PIN - 682301.

¶36

BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER P.B.MUHAMMED AJEESH RITHIK S.ANAND ANU PAUL

¶37

RESPONDENTS:

¶38

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER

¶39

2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, MARADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 304.

¶40

3 ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶41

4 THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, 7TH FLOOR, VENKARATH TOWER, ERNAKULAM-682 024.

¶42

¶43

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶44

5 RENJITH CHANDRAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O.M.N.CHANDRASEKHARAN, FLAT NO.5B, WHITE WATERS, PHASE 2, PANDITKARUPPAN ROAD, THEVARA, KOCHI-682013 REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.JACOB T. J., AGED 59, S/O. JOSEPH, THOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., PIN 682 304.

¶45

6 RAKESH MENON AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. RAGHUNATHA MENON, POOVATHUKUNNEL, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN: 686 609, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. JACOB T.J., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, THIOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., PIN: 682 304.

¶46

7 THOMAS JOSE AGED 46 YEARS S/O. KURIAN JOSE, RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 35, CHOICE VILLA, NEAR CHOICE SCHOOL,TRIPUNITHURA P.O., PIN - 682 301, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. JACOB T.J., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, THOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., PIN: 682 304.

¶47

8 MURALEEDHARAN AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, THELEKKAT CHATHOTH HOUSE, CHERUKUNNAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670 301, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. ANOOP V., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, SIVAMANGALM,CHOORAKODE P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691 551.

¶48

9 THOMAS MANJULA AGED 42 YEARS W/O. FRANCIS GRIGERY, VELLIKARA HOUSE, KOTTANGAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN- 686 547, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. JACOB T.J., AGED 59 YEARS. S/O. JOSEPH, THOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P. O., PIN: 682 304.

¶49

10 SATHISH KUMAR AGED 54 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, KAMALA BHAVAN, THEKKEVILA P.O., MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 016, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. JACOB T.J., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, THOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P. O., PIN - 682 304.

¶50

¶51

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶52

11 PADMANABHAN NAIR AGED 67 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, DRISYA, TC 4/198, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. JACOB T. J., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, THOTTALIKAL HOUSE, MARADU P. O., PIN - 682 304. 12 DILEEP JOSE AGED 47 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH CHANDY, MARADU VILLAGE, NETTOOR DESOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 304. BY ADVS.A.ARUNKUMAR K.R.VINOD VIPIN P VARGHESE VIPIN P.VARGHESE SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL M.S.LETHA NABIL KHADER K.S.SREEREKHA ADARSH MATHEW MERLINE MATHEW MEERA ELSA GEORGE KEVIN MATHEW GEORGE B.PREMOD, SC, KSEBL

¶53

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).33323/2022 AND CONNECTED CASE, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶54

¶55

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶57

PRESENT

¶58

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶59

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 37789 OF 2022

¶60

PETITIONER:

¶61

KRISHNAKUMAR AGED 46 YEARS S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN AMBADI, SOUPARNIKA, THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN: 682 301.

¶62

BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RITHIK S.ANAND ANU PAUL SREELAKSHMI MENON P. NAVANEETH.N.NATH(K/1002/2016)

¶63

RESPONDENTS:

¶64

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶65

2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, MARADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN: 682 304.

¶66

3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶67

4 RENJITH CHANDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. M.N. CHANDRASEKHARAN, FLAT NO. 5B, WHITE WATERS, PHASE 2, PANDITKARUPPAN ROAD, THEVARA, KOCHI - 682 013. 5 RAKESH MENON, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. RAGHUNATHA MENON, POOVATHUKUNNEL, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN: 686 609,

¶68

¶69

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶70

6 THOMAS JOSE, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. KURIAN JOSE, RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 35, CHOICE VILLA, NEAR CHOICE SCHOOL, TRIPUNITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN: 682 301.

¶71

7 THOMAS MANJULA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. FRANCIS GRIGERY, VELLIKARA HOUSE, KOTTANGAL P.O., PATHANAMTHIRRA, PIN: 686 547,

¶72

8 SATHISH KUMAR, AGED 54, S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, KAMALA BHAVAN, THEKKEVILA P.O., MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM, PIN: 691 016.

¶73

9 PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, DRISYA, TC 4/198, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 003.

¶74

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER B.PREMOD, SC, KSEBL

¶75

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).33323/2022 AND CONNECTED CASE, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶76

¶77

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶78

JUDGMENT

¶79

This order of mine shall dispose of three Writ Petitions, two Writ Petitions filed by one Krishnakumar i.e., WP(C) Nos.15994 of 2022 and 37789 of 2022, and W.P(C).No.33323 of 2022 filed by villa owners. In first two Writ Petitions, the following reliefs have been sought :

¶80

(1) WP(C)No.15994/2022 :

¶81

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to implement Ext.P3 scheme only in accordance with Ext.P6 judgment of this Hon'ble Court in its true letter and spirit.

¶82

(ii) Declare that respondents Nos.1 to 3 are duty bound to implement Ext.P3 scheme in its true letter and spirit and without any deviation because of the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment ;

¶83

(iii) issue any other writ order or directions, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper from time to time for this petitioner to attain the ends of justice.”

¶84

(2) WP(C) No.37789/2022 :

¶85

(i) Call the entire records leads to Ext.P13 and quash Ext.P13 by issuing the writ of certiorari ;

¶86

(ii) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent and 2^nd respondents to grant electricity connection to the petitioner forthwith ;

¶87

(iii) Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents ;

¶88

(iii) Issue any other writ order or directions, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper from time to time for this petitioner to attain the ends of justice.”

¶89

¶90

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶91

2 . In WP(C) No.15994 of 2022, petitioner is seeking implementation of Ext.P3 scheme after complying with the findings given by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment dated 21.03.2022 in Writ Petition (C) No.16827 of 2021. In WP(C) No.37789 of 2022, Ext.P13 order of the ADM dated 16.07.2022 has been challenged. W.P(C). No.33323 of 2022 is filed by six persons who are arrayed as respondents in the other two Writ Petitions, and are having clash of interest for supply of electricity with the petitioner in other writ petitions.

¶92

Krishnakumar, the petitioner in two Writ Petitions, and his wife purchased 3.07 Ares of property in Sy.No.249/2 in Maradu Village, Nettoor Desom vide sale deed No.229 of 2013 dated 21.01.2013, providing a covenant of right to way through road. After the purchase, as per the sale deed, the erstwhile owner (for brevity “builder”) promulgated a village project whereby the petitioners in WP(C) No.33323 of 2022 purchased the properties adjacent to the petitioners. All of them entered into a construction agreement with the builder and agreed for living in a compound. Petitioners never signed any document nor any agreement with the builder. However, the aforesaid project failed. Later, another property, nearby the property covered by sale deed dated

¶93

¶94

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶95

21.01.2013, was purchased in an open auction conducted by State Bank of India vide sale deed No.1036 of 2021 dated 17.06.2021 in favour of Krishnakumar. The grievance of all the residents of the area erupted for supply of the electric connections. The other group jointly submitted an application for framing of the scheme without obtaining the consent and signatures of Krishnakumar owning two other villas, namely (6) and (8) covered under the sale deeds and obtained a scheme on 13.07.2021 allegedly prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section.

¶96

On account of non implementation of the scheme, the other group of villa owners, having different line of thought and perception with Krishnakumar, approached this Court vide Writ Petition bearing No.16827 of 2021 by impleading Krishnakumar and his wife as party respondents. This Court vide judgment dated 21.03.2022 in Writ Petition (C) No.16827 of 2021 noticing the contents of the scheme and the fact that the amount had already been deposited with the Electricity Department, observed that the transformer will be erected only after the clearances undertaking dated 23.04.2021 whereby the electrical inspector had imposed following fifteen (15) conditions :

¶97

“1. Power allocation sanction should be obtained from the Kerala State Electricity Board/Licensee and a copy of the

¶98

¶99

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶100

same forwarded to the office of the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Ernakulam.

¶101

2. Installation of all switch boards and distribution boards should be in conformity with Regulation 37 (iii) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to safety and Electric Supply) Regulation, 2010.

¶102

3. Fuses should be graded properly and selected based on the rating of cables. Low watt loss fuses shall be selected. 4. Earthing of the installation should conform to IS 3043/1987.

¶103

5. Isolation facility should be provided for all equipments within a distance of 3 meters from equipments conforming to Regulation 35(5) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations 2010.

¶104

6. M.V.Installation should conform to I.S.732.

¶105

7. Installation all cables should be as per standards.

¶106

8. Only materials with I.S. certification as required under Quality Control Order should be used.

¶107

9. Only energy efficient equipments shall be used in the installation.

¶108

10. The validity of the scheme approval is up to 22.04.2023. 11. The acoustic enclosure of DG set shall be of CPCB approved type.

¶109

12. Energy meters should be provided in the generators circuits which may be tested and sealed with CTs, if any by the KSEB/Meter Testing and standards Laboratory attached to this Department and copy of the test report shall be forwarded to the Office of the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Ernakulam.

¶110

13. All relays & meters shall be tested in Meter Testing and Standards Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram/Labs in District Office and test certificate shall be submitted along with completion report.

¶111

14. Completion report should be submitted to the office of the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Ernakulam for arranging inspection.

¶112

15. No objection certificate/sanction from the other agencies/persons/ authority any shall be availed before commencement of electrical works.”

¶113

In the mean time, Krishnakumar along with his wife submitted an

¶114

application on 13.07.2021 for supply of electric connection and

¶115

¶116

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶117

deposited the electricity charges. The said application vide order dated 29.07.2021 was rejected by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Maradu, on the ground that it falls within the provisions of Regulation 49(5) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, i.e., a gated colony where builder or promoter is required to construct internal distribution network as per the detailed scheme approved by the Electrical Inspector for receiving the power from the licencee and distribution to all occupants consumers.

¶118

The said order was assailed by the petitioner Krishnakumar before the CGRF, i.e., Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (Central Region). During the interregnum KSEB, as per the licencee Rules and provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1887, referred the dispute to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM). The CGRF after noticing this fact disposed of the appeal by issuing directions to the ADM to consider the same with notice to all the affected parties.

¶119

The ADM vide order dated 16.07.2022 ordered that the service connection shall be allowed to the two villas owned by the petitioner Krishnakumar in two Writ Petitions through existing underground cable and by upgrading the existing transformer i n case the capacity of the existing transformer becomes insufficient.

¶120

¶121

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶122

The aforementioned order was assailed in WP(C) No.37789 of 2022 (Ext.P13) by the petitioner on the ground that there are two electric posts installed where the electric supply can be supplied to the petitioner independently without underground cable as it would put additional load for the reason that the electricity supply through same cable would be also supplied to other six villa owners. The petitioner's requirement for two villas is almost 40 KVA each.

¶123

7 . Since the predicament of the petitioner Krishnakumar

¶124

and his wife were writ large, the following direction as noticed above dated 21.03.2022 in respect of Writ Petition bearing No.16827 of 2021 filed by the other co-owners came to be passed :

¶125

“The prayer in this writ petition filed on behalf of seven petitioners is for implementation of the order dated 13.07.2021 Ext.P4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that certain conditions, to be undertaken by the petitioners, have been complied with, but at the intervention of respondent Nos.4 and 5, Electricity Board are not going ahead, which is evident from the contents of paragraph 5 of the statement filed in this writ petition.

¶126

2. The order Ext.P4 reads thus:

¶127

“With reference to the above, I am happy to inform you that KSEBL will be able to provide the supply as requested by you. It is noted that the following major works has to be executed for providing the supply. The work includes:

¶128

Part A:- Insertion of PSC pole on existing 11KV Paruthichuvadu feeder with LA and erection 100KVA transformer on RCC structure.

¶129

Part B:- Construction of RCC structure, Installation of RMU, Laying HT UG Cable, drawing LT cable, LT cable trench, Installation of metering panel and allied works by party.

¶130

¶131

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶132

Part A will be done by the KSEBL & Part B will have to be carried out by the party under the supervision of KSEBL. The LT cable should be visible upto the metering point. A DLMS compatible DTR meter shall be installed at the transformer outgoing point for energy audit purpose. Also necessary statutory clearance such as El approvals, Local Self Government department, PWD, NH Road etc. required for carrying out the work should be obtained by you.

¶133

The estimated cost of the work is Rs.9,23,930/(Rs.Nine Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Only). You may remit 2,71,492/-( Rupees Two Lakh Seventy One Thousand Hundred and Ninety Two Only). Advance remitted has been deducted from the above cost. All the works shall be executed by a licensed contractor under the supervision of Board officials and obtaining necessary approvals. You are requested to remit the cost of work and supervision charges for the works at Electrical Section, Maradu within 15 days of this intimation, failing which your application will be treated as canceled and the advance will be forfeited to Board' account. The remittance may be made by demand draft drawn in favour of the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Maradu payable at Maradu. The duplicate copy of this demand is to be signed and submitted to the undersigned as a token of acceptance of the same.”

¶134

3. On perusal of the order, though the petitioners have already deposited the amount, Electricity department will only erect the transformer in case the clearances as directed to be undertaken by the petitioners have been obtained. This court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the Electricity Board in the absence of such clearances to erect the transformer straight away.

¶135

Writ petition is disposed of with the observation that in case the petitioners obtain the requisite sanctions and permission from the department, the electricity people will adhere to the order Ext.P4 in letter and spirit.”

¶136

Relief as noticed above was sought for, for implementation of the

¶137

¶138

WP(C)No.33323/2022 & conn.

¶139

scheme strictly as per the conditions extracted above.

¶140

8 . This Court vide order dated 27.06.2022 in W.P.(C) No.15994 of 2022, as an interim measure, directed the Electrical Inspector to consider the request dated 28.03.2022 submitted by the petitioner raising objection against the issuance of any revised NOC clearance sanctioned to any person for installation of transformer, RMU, generator, panel room etc. in the area marked for garden which amounted to violation of the Building Rules, by affording opportunity of hearing and to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶141

9 . The Chief Electrical Inspector vide Ext.P7 order dated 16.08.2022 in W.P.(C) No.33323 of 2022 afforded opportunity to all the affected parties and made recommendations for the purpose of installation of the diesel generator set and for energisation of the RMU and SOP -standard operating procedure- transformer, which reads as under :

¶142

“A. The following aspects are recommended for the DG installation at the site.

¶143

1. The electrical contractor has to revise his scheme approval eliminating villa 6 & 8 as NOC from concerned owners were not submitted. The DG shall propose in the space which should not come under the area claimed by the petitioner.

¶144

2. If the owner of the villa 6 & 8 proposes a separate DG set, he should submit separate scheme through any licensed contractor for approval and sanction. If the petitioner proposes the DG in the

¶145

¶146

¶147

common space, NOC from all other villa owners should be submitted. Otherwise he should install the DG at his own premises.

¶148

3. If the petitioner is not proposing any DG set at their premises, then it does not come under the purview of Electrical Inspectorate.

¶149

4. If the villa 6 & 8 owner is willing to give NOC for installing the DG set panels to the existing electrical contractor, then the revised electrical scheme for installing DG set with enhanced load requirement of villa 6 & 8 shall be submitted.

¶150

B. The following aspects are recommended for the RMU and SOP transformer at the site for which the application was submitted by the Assistant Engineer, KSEB Ltd., Maradu.

¶151

(1) For issuing sanction for energisation by the RMU and SOP transformer, electrical inspectorate only verifies the electrical safety aspect of the installation and all clearances from other agencies, persons, etc. have to be verified by the KSEB Ltd. The installation was inspected from our office and the inspection report is ready to forward to KSEB Ltd.

¶152

(2) At the time hearing, the petitioner demanded for more power requirement. Since Villa 6 & 8 owner has not given NOC to the respondent, he can avail his own electric supply with proper metering, arrangement without affecting supply distribution of other villas, through UG cable. As per the order of the Honourable Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam No.DCEKM/5717/2012 M5 dated 16.07.2022. Supply and Metering arrangement shall be done as per the guidelines of the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

¶153

(3) If A(4) condition is agreeable to the petitioner, then the beneficiary can enhance the existing transformer as per the order by Honourable Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam (Exhibit 6).

¶154

Ernakulam Sd/16.8.2022 Electrical Inspector Electrical Inspectorate Depart.”

¶155

10. The aforementioned order as per the submission of the

¶156

counsel sets the controversy to rest as in view of the proviso to

¶157

¶158

¶159

Regulation 49, though it is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that not only the CGRF but even in the reply of the Electricity Regulatory Commission, on the basis of the report of the Municipality, it has been found that the other six villa owners entered into an agreement with the builder to fence the villas by constructing boundary wall to clothe the villas to be a gated colony. There is no impediment for the petitioner, owner of villa Nos.(6) and (8), to obtain independent electric connection and is thus not bound by the scheme framed in favour of other villa owners. Thus the decision of the Electrical Inspector dated 16.08.2022 in rejecting the request is wholly preposterous and fallacious. The ADM could not assume the role of adjudicatory forum in respect of the dispute as it was not the case of drawing the electricity over the property of co-owners or neighbours or taking away the land of either of the owners in the vicinity for assessment of the damages.

¶160

11. Learned counsel representing the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.33323 of 2022, the owners of other villas bearing Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 9, have sought the direction of this Court for energisation of the existing transformer with the underground cable de hor the objections of the owner of villa Nos.6 and 8. i.e., the petitioners in

¶161

¶162

¶163

other writ petitions.

¶164

12. Learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that Ext.P7 order of the Electrical Inspector dated 16.08.2022 passed in pursuance to the interim order dated 27.06.2022 in WP(C) No.15994 of 2022 has not been assailed by either of the parties and the Electricity Department is bound by the same.

¶165

13. I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

¶166

14. Cumulative reading of the conditions imposed in Ext.P6 letter dated 29.07.2021 in W.P.(C) No.37789 of 2022, the operative part of the scheme and the order of the Electrical Inspector dated 16.08.2022 lead to a conclusion that Electrical Inspector has formed a solution to bring quietus, amongst the villa owners particularly a set of villa owners owning villa Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 9 viz. villa owners (6) and (8) i.e., petitioner Krishnakumar and his wife. Electricity Department while rejecting the case of the petitioner did not consider that the demand of the petitioner for villa Nos.6 and 8 was more than what the scheme envisaged for providing electrical connection to villa owners 1 to 5, 7 and 9. Neither his NOC as contained in the letter dated 29.07.2021 was

¶167

¶168

¶169

ever obtained. Even the diesel generator set contained in condition No.15 has also not been installed in the letter and spirit. Liberty has been granted to the petitioner Krishnakumar for installing his own DG set for his own premises which Krishnakumar and his wife never raised objection.

¶170

15. Now the question which arise is whether the petitioner Krishnakumar can be compelled to give NOC for energisation of the existing RMU. The answer to the question raised aforementioned would be that once the owner of villa nos.6 and 8 has been given liberty to avail his own electric supply with proper metering arrangement without affecting the electricity distribution to other villas, the only problem the petitioner has expressed was that already laid under ground cable will not be able to bear the load of all the existing villas considering his requirement of 40 KVA each for two villas. I am in agreement with such request for the reason that there may not be any tripping in overdrawing the power from the cable which may not be able to sustain consumption of higher voltage of electricity. It is a matter of record that four electric posts have already been installed outside villa Nos.(6) and (8). Electricity Department is directed to entertain the application of the petitioner for supply separate electrical connection with proper metering

¶171

¶172

¶173

arrangement subject to fulfilling all the conditions. The counsel representing the other villa owners raised an objection with regard to the usage of the electric post as they are erected adjacent to the common pathway.

¶174

16. The objection has no basis for the reason that the posts are erected on the southern side from villa No.9 which will not affect the width of 5 mtr. road shown in the sketch plan which is not disputed by either side. Directions are issued to the respondent Electricity Department to process the application of the petitioner Krishnakumar for independent separate electric erection for villa Nos.(6) and (8) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Department is also directed to energise the existing transformer providing electricity connection to other six villa owners i.e., 1 to 5, 7 and 9 immediately on receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

¶175

Writ Petitions are disposed off.

¶176

Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

csl

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15994/2022

¶181

PETITIO Exhibit	NER'S P1	EXHIBITS THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1036/2021 EXECUTED BY CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, IN FAVOUR OF THIS RESPONDENT DATED 17-06-2021.
Exhibit	P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 17/12/2015 PREPARED AND PUBLISHED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DB. NO. 24/ESD- TPRA/OYEC/21-22/DN DATED 13-07-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 12/8/2021 IN I.A.-2/2021 IN O.S. NO. 623/2021 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit	P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER E2/7300/2021 DATED 27-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-03-2022 IN W.P.(C) 16827/2021 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit	P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28.3.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
Exhibit	P8	THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.0820053012021 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR DATED 23/4/2021
Exhibit	P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28/3/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DEPUTY CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR BY THE PETITIONER WITHOUT DOCUMENTS
Exhibit	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/07/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION WITHOUT EXHIBITS
Exhibit	P11	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/09/2022

¶182

¶183

¶184

IN COMPLAINT NO.1550/COM.EX/2022/KSERC

¶185

Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 229/2013 DATED 21-01-2013 OF THE MARADU SRO ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXECUTED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER

¶186

Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER SERVICE CONNECT/AES/MDU/2021-22/106 DATED 29-07-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶187

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶188

Exhibit R1(a)

¶189

TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 06.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE MARADU MUNICIPALITY Exhibit R14-A A True copy of Order No. CGRF-CR-OP No. 13/2022-23 dated 30.05.2022

¶190

Exhibit R14-B A true copy of the order issued by ADM dated 16.07.2022

¶191

Exhibit R14The English translated copy of the exhibit R14B(a) B , original of which is in Malayalam

¶192

¶193

¶194

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37789/2022

¶195

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶196

Exhibit P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
	229/2013 DATED 21-01-2013 OF THE MARADU SRO ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXECUTED BY MR. LATE DELEEP JOSE AND OTHERS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 17/12/2015 PREPARED AND PUBLISHED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1036/2021 EXECUTED BY CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, IN FAVOUR OF THIS RESPONDENT DATED 17-06-2021.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER E2/7300/2021 DATED 27-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 12/8/2021 IN I.A-2/2021 IN O.S. NO. 623/2021 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SERVICE CONNECTN/AE-S/MDU/2021-22/106 DATED 29- 07-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DB.NO.24/ESD- TPRA/OYEC/21-22/DN. DATED 13-07-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-03- 2022 IN W.P.(C) 16827/2021
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE DATED 16-08-2022 IN WP(C) 15994/2022
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/9/2022 IN COMPLAINT NO. 1550/COM.EX/2022/KSERC

¶197

¶198

¶199

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO-CGRF-CR/OP NO13/2022-23 DATED 30/5/2022 CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-062022 IN W.P.(C) 18319/2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NODCEKM/5717/2022-M5 DATED 16/7/2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO: 17973/2021 DATED 20-09-2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.

¶200

¶201

¶202

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33323/2022

¶203

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶204

Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED 06-06-2014 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 6TH PETITIONER AND THE BUILDER.
Exhibit	P2	THE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30-07- 2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.15174/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13-07-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.16827 OF 2021 DATED 21-03- 2022.
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.16663 OF 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 21-03- 2022.
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.15994 OF 2022 DATED 27-09- 2022.
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16-08-2022 BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR IN CHARGE.
Exhibit	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KSEB DATED 15-10- 2022.
RESPOND	ENTS'	EXHIBITS
Exhibit	R6(1)	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.229/2013 DATED 21-01-2013 OF MARADU SRO, ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXECUTED IN FAVOR OF THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	R6(2)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SERVICE CONNECTION/AE-SMDU, 2021-2022/106, DATED 29- 07-2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶205

¶206

¶207

Exhibit R6(3)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SHOWING THE APPROVAL OF THE SCHEME DATED 13-07-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R6(4)	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE SCHEME OBTAINED BY THE RESPONDENT BY WAY OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 31-08-2021
Exhibit R6(5)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.-CGRF-CR/OP NO- 13/2022-23 DATED 30/05/2022 CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM
Exhibit R6(6)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-03-2021 IN WPC 16827/2021
Exhibit R6(7)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE DATED 16-08-2022 IN WP(C0 15994/2022
Exhibit R6(8)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.1550/COM.EX/2022 KSERC DATED 30-09-2022

Krishnakumar v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnakumar v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Rubco Huat Woods (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Rijeesh K., Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Anjana M.M, Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

The Manager Vs the General Secretary

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner

Ranjith Chandran Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited