IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 11026 of 2005(K)
1. DR.G.SADASIVAN NAIR, PROFESSOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
5. THE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY
For Respondent :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :11/01/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 11026 of 2005
-------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of
arrears of electricity dues in respect of agricultural connection taken
in 1986. Arrears sought to be recovered is Rs.9,531/-. Petitioner’s
case is that the property is sold to a person though he is not made
a party in the writ petition. There has been considerable delay in
demand and initiation of proceedings for recovery of arrears of
electricity dues, which caused the whole problem. Learned counsel
for petitioner submitted that the sale of property was communicated
to the KSE Board for changing the connection in the name of the
purchaser, or for disconnection, if the purchaser does not desire to
retain the connection. In view of this contention, I feel, a local
enquiry has to be conducted by 4th respondent and arrears should
be demanded and recovered for consumption up to date of sale
from petitioner and thereafter from purchaser as he enjoyed the
connection. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing
4th respondent to conduct local inspection with the participation of
the purchaser, the present owner of the property, and issue
detailed order stating the nature of demand and bifurcation of
WP(C) No. 11026/2005
-2-
liability on petitioner, up to date of sale, and thereafter on the
purchaser. Recovery should be made in terms of 4th respondent’s
order so passed. There will be direction to 4th respondent to change
the connection in the name of the purchaser to avoid future
problem and if the purchaser does not want to retain the
connection, to disconnect the supply. There will be direction to
recovery authorities to withhold recovery against the petitioner for
three months from now for settlement of liability as above. As and
when revised demand is issued by 4th respondent as above, he will
recall the present demand. Fourth respondent should consider the
case of petitioner or the purchaser, as the case may be, about the
claim of exemption, if any, for concessional tariff for agricultural
connection.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)
jg