Allowed

Daniel Jayapaul, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jun 2023WP(C)/12011/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the requirement of a No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department for granting an electricity connection. Directing the plantations company to process the application within two months, the Court held that such insistence was unreasonable. The grant does not confer title.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's application for electricity connection within 2 months without insisting for No Objection Certificate from 1st respondent.

Daniel Jayapaul, Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 12011 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12011 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

DANIEL JAYAPAUL,

¶9

AGED 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.X/1436 IKKA NAGAR, MUNNAR, KANNAN
DEVAN HILLS, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN -
685612

¶10

BY ADVS.
ALBIN A. JOSEPH
SUSANTH SHAJI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
POWER SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2THE KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY PVT LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS, HEAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT KDHP
HOUSE, MUNNAR IDUKKI, PIN - 685612
3THE MUNNAR GRAMAPANCHAYAT
MUNNAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMAPANCHAYAT
OFFICE, MUNNAR, PIN - 685612
BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
V.ABRAHAM MARKOS(K/354/1975)
ISAAC THOMAS(K/571/2014)
P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM(MAH/002141/2016)
ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS(K/001270/2018)
SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA(K/001677/2018)
JOHN VITHAYATHIL(K/001877/2021)
AIBEL MATHEW SIBY(K/1376/2020)

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

GP-SMT PARVATHY K ,
SC SRI KR PRATHISH
FOR R2 SRI. ABRAHAM MARKOSE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 12011 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The writ petition is filed, inter-alia, to direct the 2^nd respondent to provide an electricity connection to the petitioner's residence bearing number X/1436, without insisting for a No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department of the 1^st respondent State.

¶20

The petitioner's case is that he is in possession of 4 cents of property, comprised in Survey No.843/A, in the Kannan Devan village. As the petitioner has not obtained the patta, the 2^nd respondent is insisting for a No Objection Certificate from the 1^st respondent, to provide an electricity connection to his residence. The stand of the 2^nd respondent is unreasonable and untenable in law. In fact, the 1^st respondent has issued Ext.P6 Government Order categorically stating that there is no necessity to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the State. Likewise, this Court, by Ext.P7 judgment, while considering a case of identical nature, has directed the 2^nd respondent to provide electricity connection to the petitioner therein, without

¶21

WP(C) NO. 12011 OF 20233

¶22

insisting for a No Objection Certificate from the 1^st respondent. The petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the same judgment. Hence, the writ petition.

¶23

Heard; Sri.Albin A. Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent; Sri. Abraham Markose, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, and Sri.K.R. Prathish, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶24

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of Ext.P6 Government Order and Ext.P7 judgment, I am definitely of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the very same relief granted by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. Thus, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition.

¶25

Resultantly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶26

(i) The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application for electricity connection, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, without insisting for a No Objection Certificate

¶27

WP(C) NO. 12011 OF 20234

¶28

from the 1^st respondent State, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

(ii) Needless to mention, the grant of electricity connection to the petitioner’s premises will not confer on him any title over the property.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

okb/2.6.23

WP(C) NO. 12011 OF 2023

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12011/2023

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 13.02.2002 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE K.D.H. VILLAGE.
Exhibit P2TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX
RECEIPT DATED 02.12.2019 IN RESPECT OF THE
BUILDING ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP
CERTIFICATE DATED 01.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
24.02.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.03.2023
Exhibit P6TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE G.O (RT) NO
104/2018/PD DATED 18.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT (WITH TYPED COPY)
Exhibit P7TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO. 31301 OF 2022 DATED 13.10.2022 PASSED BY
THIS COURT.

Daniel Jayapaul, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daniel Jayapaul, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.v.Satheesan, Vs State Bank of India

Brinileesh P S Vs the Peoples Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Karuppaswamy v Vs the Authorized Officer

Safeer M. B., Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Chennam Kulangara Sulaiman Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Aseem.N., Vs Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)