High Court Kerala High Court

M/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
M/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22048 of 2009(A)


1. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD., SEOND FLOOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DY.CHIEF ENGINEER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,

3. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :10/08/2009

 O R D E R
                    ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
                ---------------------
                W.P.(C).No.22048 OF 2009
              ------------------------
            Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009.

                          JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a High Tension consumer of the Kerala

State Electricity Board. They executed Ext.P1 agreement

with the respondents, for supply of electrical energy. In so

far as this writ petition is concerned, petitioner was

allocated 90 KVA of power and the petitioner had installed

a transformer with a capacity of 200 KVA.

2. Subsequently, it would appear that the petitioner

had installed a transformer with 315 KVA capacity, which

according to the petitioner was based on Ext.P5 approval

granted by the Chief Electrical Inspector. It is stated by the

petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P5, they applied for

additional allocation of 160 KVA.

3. However, without obtaining approval of the Board,

the installation of transformer was completed and that lead

WP(c).No.22048/09 2

to the issuance of Exts.P10 and P14. It is stated that following

Ext.P14, power supply to the transformer in question was

disconnected and that lead the petitioner to file this writ

petition.

4. Along with I.A.No.10020/2009, counsel for the

petitioner produced Exts.P15 to P17. Counsel submits that in

view of Ext.P14, they have removed the 315 KVA transformer

and reinstalled the earlier transformer with 200 KVA.

According to the petitioner, the Electrical Inspector has also

granted temporary sanction under Rule 63 for energizing the

transformer with 200 KVA. It is stated that immediately on

receipt of the said order, they have filed Ext.P17 application

before the first respondent, requesting to do the needful for

energizing the transformer and reinstate the service

connection.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

According to the respondents, the installation of the

transformer with 315 KVA was without prior approval of the

WP(c).No.22048/09 3

Board and the petitioner has also not applied for

regularization of the installation. In so far as Ext.P17 request

made by the petitioner for energizing the 200 KVA transformer

is concerned, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on

instruction submits that, unless the petitioner removes the

same unauthorised installation or regularizing the said

installation, the respondents cannot restore power supply.

This submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents is contradicted by the counsel for the petitioner,

who contends that the installation in place is the one which

they had installed at the time when 200 KVA was installed.

6. In view of Ext.P17 request made by the petitioner for

restoring the power supply, what stands in the way of the

Board is the presence of the installation with a higher capacity

and the Board wants the same to be removed. On the other

hand, the case of the petitioner is that installation is the same

as the one which was installed by them at the time when 200

KV transformer was installed. Taking into this disputed

WP(c).No.22048/09 4

question, which cannot be resolved in a writ petition, I dispose

of this writ petition with the following directions.

I direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P17, inspect

the installation of the petitioner and on instruction, if he

satisfied that the installation of the petitioner available at the

site was the one installed at the time when 200KV transformer

was available, the respondent shall take necessary steps for

restoration of the supply, subject to usual conditions that are

imposed by them. This shall be done at any rate, within 7 days

from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before

the first respondent for compliance.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WP(c).No.22048/09 5