IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27025 of 2008(P)
1. JOBIN VARGHESE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
3. JOSEPH @ KUTTIACHAN,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
For Petitioner :SRI.A.C.DEVASIA
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :13/11/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 27025 OF 2008 P
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th November, 2008
JUDGMENT
The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:
“(i) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other
appropriate direction or order prohibiting the 1st and
2nd respondents from disconnecting the existing
electrical supply to the petitioner vide Consumer
No.8918 in Building No.KP-12/687C of the
Kattappana Grama Panchayath.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 1st
and 2nd respondents that in the event of
disconnection of the electricity supply, to give
reconnection of the electricity supply immediately to
the petitioner on the basis of Exts.P7 and P8
representations.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that the third
respondent leased out an extent of 10 cents of land to the
petitioner for conducting a Maruti Workshop. It is stated that
the petitioner had purchased a Maruti Workshop building and
WPC.27025/08 P 2
accessories from one Shri Renju in 2006 and the third
respondent permitted the petitioner for conducting the workshop
in the said premises let out to the petitioner for a ground rent of
Rs.5,250/=. When the attempt was there to take forceful
possession, a Suit was filed as OS No.147/08 before the Munsiff
Court, Kattappana and an interim injunction was granted
restraining the third respondent from forcefully evicting the
petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is paying all the Bills to
the Authorities in time as per the agreement. It is stated that the
petitioner has also filed Exts.P7 and P8 representations before
the second respondent not to disconnect the electric supply and
that in any event it is disconnected, the power supply may be
restored immediately.
3. A Counter Affidavit is filed by the third respondent,
denying the case of lease. It is stated that the property has been
leased out only to Mr. Renju Sebastian and he had to vacate the
property on 30.06.2008. But, the brother of the petitioner filed a
Suit as OS No.147/08 before the Munsiff Court, Kattappana
WPC.27025/08 P 3
against the third respondent and obtained an ex parte injunction
order. It is stated that it does not give any right to the petitioner
to trespass into the third respondent’s property and continue
there.
4. A Reply Affidavit is filed purporting to produce Ext.P9
electricity bill, Ext.P10 copy of the Notice from the Assistant
Labour Officer, Ext.P11 Report of the Assistant Labour Officer,
Ext.P12 notice of the Assistant Inspector of Factories, Ext.P13
copy of the licence, Ext.P14 copy of FIR and Ext.P15
Commission Report. Of course, the third respondent has
produced, by an Affidavit, Exts.R3(a) and Ext.R3(b) which are
Newspaper Reports. I heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, learned counsel for the third respondent besides
the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Electricity Board.
5. The case set up by the petitioner, of course, is that there
is a lease. In this connection, he relies on documents which are
allegedly executed only by the petitioner. There are other
WPC.27025/08 P 4
documents also produced which I have referred to. The case of
lease is stoutly denied by the third respondent. In proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I cannot possibly
find that the petitioner is a lessee under the third respondent, and
that is a matter which is to be ascertained in an appropriate
Forum. The third respondent would contend that the petitioner
has concocted the documents which are produced. He also
refers to the Newspaper Reports produced to show that the
petitioner has been jailed for concocting documents.
6. There is no receipt produced to show that the petitioner
has paid rent to the third respondent. In fact, the third
respondent denies receiving any rent. It would not be
appropriate to enter a finding regarding the alleged tenancy.
7. Shri A.C. Devasia, learned counsel for petitioner would
contend that having regard to Regulation 14(4) of the KSEB
Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, being an occupier, in the
event of there being a disconnection, petitioner is entitled to get
reconnection, even if there is no consent by the land owner.
WPC.27025/08 P 5
8. Having considered the contentions, the Writ Petition is
disposed of as follows:
It is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum to
establish the case of lease and seek appropriate orders. The
interim order passed by this Court will continue for a period of
two weeks from today. It is also ordered that in the event of
there being disconnection, the second respondent will consider
and take a decision on Ext.P8 with due notice to the petitioner
and also the third respondent, within a period of three weeks
from the date of disconnection.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.