Dismissed

P.M.Anees v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Mar 2022WP(C)/8906/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a commercial property owner, challenged recovery proceedings for electricity dues attributed to his estate after he sold the property via registered deed. The Court held that failure to transfer the service connection per Electricity Supply Code Reg. 91 kept liability with the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner held liable for arrears; no automatic exemption from dues upon sale without proper application for transfer of connection.

P.M.Anees Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8906 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

P.M.ANEES,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE,
THYCAUD P.O., GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR - 680 104.

¶6

BY ADVS.
R.S.KALKURA
M.S.KALESH
HARISH GOPINATH
P.I.NAJUMAL HUSSAIN
ANJALI B CHANDRAN
GENTLE C.D.

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶9

2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR - 680 506.

¶10

3 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶11

4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, GURUVAYOOR - 680 101.

¶12

5 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY, BOARD, GURUVAYOOR - 680 101.

¶13

6 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, IRINJALAKUDA, TRICHUR - 680 121.

¶14

7 THE SPECIAL OFFICER, REVENUE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶15

WP(C) NO. 8906 OF 2022 -2-

¶16

8THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE),
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE),
VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI JUSTIN JACOB, SR GP
SRI B PREMOD, SC, KSEBL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 8906 OF 2022 -3-

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Petitioner was the managing partner of M/s.Sharjah Tower and had availed the high tension connection to their commercial complex from the Kerala State Electricity Board in the year 2003 and the ST agreement was executed on 08.05.2003 by the petitioner.

¶23

The case set out by the petitioner is that there was earlier litigation regarding the payment of the charges resulted into filing of the writ petition in this Court in 2009 bearing W.P(C).No.30404/2009 and this Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2015 Ext.P10 quashed all the demands. In the year 2007 i.e., on 04.01.2007 vide registered sale deed Ext.P11 the property was sold to vendee for a valuable consideration and the liability to pay all the dues was of the vendee. The Electricity Board initiated the recovery proceedings in respect of a period post sale i.e., 01.06.2018 by demanding a sum of Rs.14,78,719/- (principal amount of Rs.13,28,616/- and additional charge of Rs.1,50,103/-.) The consumption

¶24

WP(C) NO. 8906 OF 2022 -4-

¶25

was of a period when the petitioner was not in actual possession and therefore the demand was wholly uncalled for. Section 3 of the Registration Act prescribed that once the person through registered document divests his ownership is a notice to all, therefore, the Electricity Board should have initiated the recovery proceedings against the subsequent vendee.

¶26

On the other hand Mr.Premod, learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB drawn the attention of this Court to the order of this Court dated 14.12.2015 rendered in writ petition No.30404/2009 to point out that at the time when the matter was heard, the petitioner asserted himself to be in actual possession, though according to the registered sale deed Ext.P11, had parted with the possession as far back as on 04.01.2007. Regulation 91 of the Electricity Supply Code mandates any owner of the service connection to inform the licensee for the purpose of transfer by filing an application in the format prescribed in annexure A, along

¶27

WP(C) NO. 8906 OF 2022 -5-

¶28

with the documents in support of the request and transfer shall be only entitled in case the arrears are cleared and certain other requirements were complied, which was not done in this matter and therefore the service connection remained in the name of the petitioner till it was disconnected on 01.11.2019 and dismantled thereafter on 15.07.2020. The order of recovery is assailable under revision as per the provisions of Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 and urged this Court for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶30

Regulation 91 of the Electricity Supply Code

¶31

reads thus:

¶32

“91. Transfer of service connection .- (1) The consumer shall not, without prior consent in writing of the distribution licensee, assign, transfer or part with the benefit of the service connection agreement executed with the distribution licensee, or part with or create any partial or separate interest thereunder in any manner.

¶33

(2) The service connection may be transferred to another person on transfer of ownership or occupancy of the premises, by filing an application in the format

¶34

WP(C) NO. 8906 OF 2022 -6-

¶35

specified in Annexure - 8 along with the required documents in support of the request: Provided that such transfer shall not entitle the applicant to require shifting of the connection from the present premises.

¶36

(3) The transferee shall pay the required security and execute a fresh service connection agreement.

¶37

(4) The licensee shall process applications relating to change of name of the consumer due to change in ownership or occupancy of the premises in accordance with the procedure detailed below:-

¶38

(a) the applicant shall apply for the change of name of the consumer in the format prescribed in Annexure - 8 to the Code, along with a copy of the latest bill, duly paid;

¶39

(b) the request for transfer of connection shall not be accepted unless all recoverable dues in respect of the concerned connection are fully paid;

¶40

¶41

(d) a no objection certificate from the registered consumer or previous occupant of the premises or a person authorised by them shall be required in the cases involving transfer of security deposit in the name of applicant;

¶42

(e) the licensee shall process the application form in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code;

¶43

(f) in case the no objection certificate from the registered consumer or previous occupant of the premises or a person authorised by them is not submitted, an application for change of name shall be entertained only if security deposit as stipulated in the Code is paid afresh by the applicant;

¶44

(g) in such case, the original security deposit shall be refunded to the person who is entitled for the refund along with an intimation regarding the proposed transfer;

¶45

(h) change of the name of the consumer shall be effected within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the application with all necessary documents and the necessary fees, under intimation to the transferor and the transferee;

¶46

(i) the change shall be effected in the bill within a maximum of two billing cycles after acceptance of

¶47

WP(C) NO. 8906 OF 2022 -7-

¶48

application.

¶49

(5) A connection may be transferred to the legal heir or other successor in interest upon the death of the consumer, on filing an application in the specified format given in Annexure - 9 along with the required documents in support of the request: Provided that such transfer shall not entitle the applicant to require shifting of the connection from the present premises.

¶50

(6) The transferee shall pay the required security and execute a fresh service connection agreement.

¶51

(7) The licensee shall process applications relating to transfer of service connection to the legal heir or other successor in interest, upon death of the consumer, in accordance with the procedure detailed below:-

¶52

(a) the applicant shall apply for the transfer of service connection in the name of deceased consumer in the format specified in Annexure - 9 to the Code, with a copy of the latest bill, duly paid;

¶53

(b) the application form shall be accepted on producing the will or registered instrument or succession certificate or legal heirship certificate or revision in municipal or land records or any other proof of legal heirship;

¶54

¶55

(d) transfer of service connection shall be effected within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the application with all necessary documents and of necessary fees, under intimation to the applicant;

¶56

(e) the change shall be effected in the bill within a maximum of two billing cycles after acceptance of application;

¶57

(f) any charge for electricity or any sum other than charge for electricity, due and payable to the licensee which remains unpaid by the deceased consumer, shall be cleared before the service connection is transferred to the legal heir.”

¶58

On plain and simple reading of the

¶59

aforementioned provisions, it is axiomatic any person

¶60

who attempts to transfer the ownership and occupancy

¶61

WP(C) NO. 8906 OF 2022 -8-

¶62

of the property to a third party is required to submit an application in the required form Annexure A for transfer of the connection and to comply with the requirements mentioned therein. The petition is bereft of any such pleadings of compliance, in essence the service connection continued in the name of the petitioner, though the petitioner alleged to have claimed indemnification from the contents of the registered sale deed but vendee had also sought indemnification of any dues from the vendor. Though in the first blush it looked attractive that the demand is of subsequent period i.e., June, 2018 when the petitioner was no longer the owner / registered owner of the property but the service connection remained in the name of the petitioner. It is in that circumstances the Electricity Board could not have initiated recovery proceedings against third party as it would have a valid and general ground of thwarting the claim in the absence of the ownership of service connection.

¶63

WP(C) NO. 8906 OF 2022 -9-

¶64

I am of the view that this is a fit case where the petitioner is required to ward off the liability and is entitled to claim the refund in accordance with law against the vendee but cannot be prevented from paying the arrears simply on the ground of having parted with the ownership of the property by way of registered document. The KSEB is also not prevented from seeking the dues from the property by way of attachment of the premises where the connection is given. Provisions of Section 3 is a notice with regard to the ownership but as regards the water and electricity connection the requirement of the local laws has to be adhered/followed.

¶65

Writ petition sans merit, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

vv

¶70

WP(C) NO. 8906 OF 2022 -10-

¶71

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8906/2022

¶72

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶73

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `04/07/2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER` `TO THE KSEB.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.` `1/10/2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER` `TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE` `ACKNOWLEDGMENT GIVEN BY HIM FOR THE` `RECEIPT OF AN AMOUNT OF` `RS.1,40,850/-.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `21/11/2003 ISSUED BY THE FIRST` `RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `26/11/2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER` `TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `12/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE 6TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `19/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER` `TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED` `07/01/2004 ISSUED BY THE 8TH` `RESPONDENT TO M/S.SHARJAH TOWER.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `23/06/2009 IN WP(C) NO.24393/2004.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `14/10/2009.`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `14/12/2015 IN WPC NO.30404 OF 2009.`

¶74

WP(C) NO. 8906 OF 2022 -11-

¶75

Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.60/2007 DATED 4/1/2007 EXECUTED
BY THE PETITIONER AND ANOTHER IN
FAVOUR OF M/S.KANOOS BUSINESS
(INDIA) PVT.LTD.
Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
13/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

P.M.Anees v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Anees 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

Vijayan K.R. Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan P.K. Vs State of Kerala

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Molly

Housemaster Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivasan Vs the Additional District Magistrate and Deputy Collector (General)

St.Monica Educational Trust Vs State of Kerala