IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21235 of 2009(Y)
1. NARAYANIKUTTY AMMA, AGED 64 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTAT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
5. GOPALAN NAIR, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :31/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.21235 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of
a building bearing No.3/618, Vayalar Panchayat. Exts.P1 to
P3 are the tax receipt, possession certificate and ownership
certificate in respect of the property and building owned by
the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, the building in
question, though belongs to her is shared with the 5th
respondent and his family who are occupying a separate
portion of the building. It is stated that the 5th respondent
made an application for supply of energy and connection
was given with consumer No.2767. It is stated that,
subsequently the 5th respondent defaulted payment,
resulting in disconnection of power supply. Thereafter the
petitioner made Ext.P1 application for a new connection for
WP(c).No.21235/09 2
the portion of the building occupied by her. It is stated that
there was no progress in the matter and therefore this writ
petition is filed.
3. The standing counsel appearing for the respondent
Board on instructions submit that, when application was
received the 5th respondent raised objections for supplying
energy to the premises occupied by the petitioner and
therefore the first respondent has referred the matter to the
2nd respondent for removal of the obstruction in terms of the
provisions contained in Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act
and Section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003. It is stated that the
matter is pending before the Addl. District Magistrate.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances pointed out by the
respondents, only after the 2nd respondent passes an order
removing the obstruction, can further action be taken on the
application made by the petitioner. At this stage the only order
the petitioner can seek is a direction to the 2nd respondent to
finalize the proceedings pending before him.
WP(c).No.21235/09 3
5. Having regard to the above, I direct the 2nd respondent
to pass final orders on Ext.P1 application made by the
petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and
at nay rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a
copy of the judgment, with notice to the parties concerned.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
be permitted to clear the arrears that is due from the 5th
respondent and on that basis, the first respondent may be
directed to restore power supply to consumer No.2767.
Taking into account the submission so made, it is
directed that if the petitioner clears the arrears due from the
5th respondent, the first respondent shall restore power supply
to consumer No.2767, subject to compliance of other
formalities, if any, by the petitioner.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.21235/09 4