SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Ker) 457

Kerala High Court
RAJEEV GUPTA,K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,KURIAN JOSEPH
Suraj K.R. - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board - Respondent
Decided On : 07/28/2005

Advocates:
M. Rajasekharan Nayar, for Appellant; P. Santhalingam, Standing Counsel, K.S.E.B., for Respondents.

Headnote:

Electricity Board - Arrears of Electricity Dues - Regulations 15(d) and (e) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 79, Section 49, Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, Section 2(j), Section 3, Section 5, Section 60, Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Section 2(c) - The court discussed the applicability of Regulations 15(d) and (e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy framed by the Electricity Board, and their relation to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The court also interpreted the definition of

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute regarding the Electricity Board's demand for arrears of electricity dues, including penalty, from a new owner/occupier/allottee of premises as a pre-condition for electricity connection. The petitioner, an auction purchaser, sought electricity connection without clearing the arrears due from the previous consumer. The court analyzed the relevant regulations and Acts to determine the petitioner's entitlement to electricity connection.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Electricity Board was entitled to insist on the payment of arrears of electricity charges as a pre-condition for supplying electricity to the same premises to a prospective consumer. The court upheld the validity and applicability of Regulations 15(d) and (e) and dismissed the appeal.

Issues: The key issues included the interpretation of Regulations 15(d) and (e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, the definition of

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the statutory nature of the terms and conditions of supply, as established by the Supreme Court, and the absence of specific statutory provisions relieving auction purchasers from liability for arrears of electricity charges. The court also emphasized the reasonable nexus of Regulation 15(e) with the objective of protecting public property and serving the general interest of the community.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Electricity Board's entitlement to demand payment of arrears of electricity charges as a pre-condition for supplying electricity to the same premises to a prospective consumer.

Judgement

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. :- The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether the Electricity Board can demand arrears of electricity dues including penalty incurred by a previous consumer from a new owner/occupier/allottee of the same premises as a pre-condition for electricity connection under Regulation 15(e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity Energy.

2. Three Division Benches of this Court in Ramchandran v. K.S.E. Board, 2000 (2) KLT 694 : (AIR 2001 Ker 51), K. J. Dennis v. Liquidator, 2001 (3) KLT 75 : (AIR 2001 Ker 380) and Seena B. Kumar v. Asst. Executive Engineer, 2003 (3) KLT 987 : (AIR 2004 Ker 68), have upheld the right of the Board, correctness of which was doubted by another Division Bench and referred the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement and hence the matter was placed before us.

3. Writ petitioner has purchased about 3 acres and 19¼ cents of land in Porathusseri village in Mukundapuram taluk in public auction conducted under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for an amount of Rs. 15,65,000/-. Electricity connection was not available in the premises when it was purchased. Electricity supply was disconnected from the premises due to non-payment of electricity charges by the previous owner of the premises. Petitioner after purchasing the premises submitted an application in November 2001 to the Board for fresh electricity connection. Petitioner was informed that the application would be entertained only if the electricity arrears due from the previous consumer is cleared. Petitioner has therefore approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Board to provide him with electricity connection stating that he is not obliged to pay the arrears due from the previous consumer.

4. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition placing reliance on Regulation 15(e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electricial Energy holding that the liability of the previous consumer would not be wiped off even if the petitioner is an auction purchaser in a revenue sale. Petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Division Bench. The Bench felt that Regulations 15(d) and 15(e) mainly deal with reconnection and those provisions cannot be made applicable to a person who has applied for a new connection. The Bench felt none of the earlier decisions has considered the validity of Regulation 15(e) especially in the light of the definition of the word "consumer", or from the stand point of a person who has purchased the premises in a public auction free from all encumbrances as per Section 60 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and hence the matter was placed before the Full Bench.

5. The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 provides for the rationalisation of the production and supply of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to electrical development. Section 79 enables the Board to make regulations. Section 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act enables the Electricity Board to lay down principles governing supply of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees under Section 49. Section 49 of the Act enables the Board to supply electricity to persons other than licence. The Board in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and other enabling provisions of the statute has issued the Regulations relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Regulation 3 states that prospective consumers shall furnish the details as per the Application for Supply of Electricity in Form 1 and after completing the formalities and on approval of service connection estimate the applicant will have to furnish security deposit as provided under Regulation 14. Along with the remittance of security deposit the consumer should execute the service connection agreement in Form No. 7 as provided under Regulation 15(a) and the premises will not be connected unless and until the agreement is executed. Regu























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top