IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36362 of 2009(M)
1. ASST. SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT
... Petitioner
2. THRISSUR CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY
3. ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY WING,
Vs
1. A.P.CHERIYAN, ALENGATTU MANAVALAN HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,
3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
4. THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :21/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009
&
384 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 21st January , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The issue involved in both these Writ Petitions rather
centres round on non-providing necessary electric connection to
the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 384 of 2010, allegedly because of
the dispute between the KSEB and the Thrissur Municipal
Corporation, particularly as to who is the actual person to
provide necessary connection to the petitioner/(‘consumer’ in
short).
2. The consumer constructed a building and submitted
application for connection before the Corporation who was stated
as the concerned licensee in the area to provide the service
connection under OYEC scheme. But the Corporation refused to
accept the same, stating that the area where the building is
situated was in Vilvattom Panchayath, which does not come
W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 &
384 OF 2010
2
within the jurisdiction of the Corporation and that it is for the
KSEB to provide the electric connection in the said area. In the
said circumstances, the petitioner filed application before the
third respondent for getting connection and remitted the
prescribed fees as evidenced by Exts. P1 to P3. Despite the
collection of the requisite amount, as stipulated by the Board,
the connection was not given in view of the dispute between the
KSEB and the Corporation as to who was the actual person to
provide necessary connection. The consumer was constrained to
approach the CDRF, Thrissur by filing C.C.No. 652 of 2009,
wherein an order was passed, directing the Corporation to
provide connection to the consumer. Since the Corporation did
not choose to implement the same, the consumer filed further
proceedings so as to get it executed, in the course of which, the
CDRF passed an order of arrest and detention of the concerned
officers of the Corporation, which in turn is subjected to
challenge by the Corporation and the officers concerned in W.P.
(C) No. 36362 of 2009, wherein further proceedings have been
W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 &
384 OF 2010
3
intercepted by this Court, as per the interim order dated
16.12.2009. It is in the said circumstances, that the consumer
has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.384 of 2010
seeking for appropriate reliefs.
3. The respondent Board has filed a statement, while the
Corporation has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No. 384 of
2010. The learned Counsel for the consumer(petitioner in WP(C)
384 of 2010) submits, with reference to Exts. P5 and P6
proceedings in the other case, that as per the letter issued by
the Regulatory Commission vide Ext. P5, if at all the concerned
licensee/service provider is not having any infrastructure to
provide necessary connection to the concerned building situated
in the area and if any other licensee in the nearby area is having
such facility, the connection can be provided to the beneficiary,
making use of such facility of the nearby licensee, after entering
into necessary agreement between the licensee and the Board.
It was pursuant to Ext. P5 that Ext. P6 resolution was passed by
the Thrissur Municipal Corporation, who is the licensee of the
W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 &
384 OF 2010
4
nearby area, to provide connection to the consumer in the
nearby/adjoining area, which however comes within the area and
jurisdiction of the Board, provided necessary agreements are
executed by the Board in this regard and that the draft
agreement prepared in this regard has been approved
accordingly. The learned Counsel for the consumer submits that,
despite Exts.P5 and P6, proceedings are still to be finalised and
the respondent Board and the Municipal Corporation are simply
playing ‘hide and seek’ game, insinuating each other.
4. It is very much evident from the contents of the
statement filed by the KSEB that they have conceded that the
area in question where the building of the consumer is situated
comes very much within the jurisdiction of the Board and not
within the area of the Corporation of Thrissur. In view of the
factual position stated as above, it is equally for both the KSEB
and the Municipal Corporation, Thrissur, to provide the
connection to the consumer, in the light of Ext P5, of course after
making proper agreement with regard to the supply, to be
W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 &
384 OF 2010
5
routed through the KSEB. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
in W.P.(C) No.384 of 2010 also submits that the petitioner does
not intend to enforce the order passed by the CDRF causing
arrest and detention of the officers of the Corporation and that
the petitioner is only anxious about the connection to be provided
to the petitioner . It is further brought to the notice of this
Court that orders have been passed by this Court in W.P. (C)
No.27963 of 2009 (as borne by Ext.P5 in WP(C) 384 of 2010)
directing the Corporation to provide necessary electric
connection. But taking note of the specific averments raised by
the Corporation in the counter affidavit filed from their side and
also taking note of the contents of Exts. P5 and P6 in W.P.(C)No.
36362 of 2009, this Court finds that an agreement has to be
executed between the Board and the Corporation on the basis
of Ext. P5 letter issued by the Regulatory Commission and
Ext.P6 resolution passed by the Corporation, so as to route the
electric energy through the KSEB, making use of infrastructure
available to the Corporation in the area, and to give necessary
W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 &
384 OF 2010
6
connection to the consumer.
5. With regard to the submission made from the part of the
Board as to the necessity to install ‘two meters’ in the premises
of the petitioner so as to protect the interest of the Board as
well, against the claims if at all to be raised from the part of
the Corporation in the due course, this is purely a matter
between the Board and the Corporation and the proceedings in
this regard shall not deter or delay in providing necessary
connection to the consumer, which shall be finalised after
executing necessary agreement between the Board and the
Corporation immediateely.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court directs
both the KSE Board and the Municipal Corporation, Thrissur to
finalise the steps for executing the agreement between the Board
and the Corporation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment and provide necessary connection to the petitioner in
WP(C) 384 of 2010 making use of the infrastructure available to
W.P.(C)Nos. 36362 OF 2009 &
384 OF 2010
7
the Corporation in the area within a further period of one week
thereafter. The consumer (petitioner in WP(C) 384 of 2010) shall
comply with the statutory formalities, if any, including payment
of all necessary charges as and when demanded by the Board
or the Corporation, as the case may be.
7. In the above circumstances, the issue is set at rest on
consensus and no further proceedings need be pursued on the
basis of Ext. P1 in WP(C) 36362 of 2009; the same having been
remedied otherwise, as stated above.
Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk