Back
2012 Supreme(Ker) 776
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
Melath Abdul Kareem
Versus
The Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by Its Secretary & Others
WP(C). No. 21753 0f 2012 (T)
Decided on : 06-11-2012
For the Petitioner:Rajesh Vijayendran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Sajeevkumar K. Gopal, SC, KSEB, R3 & R4, C. Ajith Kumar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, particularly Regulation 12 regarding the liability of a purchaser for arrears from a previous connection, and Regulation 8(5) and 8(1)(C) concerning the requirement for installing a Transformer.
Headnote:
Electric Connection - Denial of Connection - Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 - Regulation 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a notice informing that his application for electric connection to his villa will be considered only after settling payment due from Consumer No. 18754 and installing a Transformer for meeting energy demand of the construction of villas. The property was purchased from the 3rd respondent, and the petitioner applied for electric connection in 2012. The respondents contended that the 3rd respondent was the absolute owner of the property and had applied for power allocation for 12 villas. The Anti Power Theft Squad imposed a penalty on the 3rd respondent for unauthorized usage of electricity. The respondents insisted on payment of penalty and installation of a Transformer for the petitioner's connection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not liable for the penalty due from the 3rd respondent as the property was transferred to the petitioner before the penalty became due. The court also held that the regulation requiring installation of a Transformer for meeting energy demand of all the villas could not be applied to the petitioner's case as the connected load applied by the petitioner was below the prescribed limit.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the petitioner for the penalty due from the 3rd respondent and the requirement of installing a Transformer for the petitioner's electric connection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Regulation 12 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, which states that a purchaser can be insisted upon to deposit the amount only if there existed an earlier connection in the property which has already been dismantled after disconnection, and only if the previous owner is in arrears with respect to such dismantled connection. The court also interpreted Regulation 8(5) and 8(1)(C) of the Supply Code to determine the applicability of the requirement for installing a Transformer.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the notice insisting on payment of penalty and installation of a Transformer was quashed. The respondents were directed to process the petitioner's application for electric connection and provide the petitioner with electric supply without insisting on payment of arrears due from the 3rd respondent or the installation cost of a Transformer.
1. The petitioner is challenging Exhibit P4 notice issued by the 2nd respondent, informing that his application for electric connection to his villa will be considered only after settling payment of the amount of Rs.11,68,000/-due from Consumer No. 18754, and only after installing a Transformer at the premises of the villa project for meeting energy demand of the on going and completed construction of villas.
2. The residential villa belonging to the petitioner is situated in a property having an extent of 9.88 cents comprised in Re-survey No.176/1A of Kadannappally Village. The property was purchased form the 3rd respondent on 27.03.2009. The building in question was constructed through the 4th respondent, builder. Exhibit P2 Ownership Certificate issued from the Grama Panchayat will indicate that the building in question was registered in the name of the petitioner for assessment of Property Tax and the building was assigned with NO. IX/431-N. Petitioner submitted Exhibit P3 application for electric connection on 03.08.2012. Exhibit P4 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner is not liable for payment of the amounts demanded and on the ground that he is not at an obligation to install any Transformer for Getting the connection.
3. It is evident that the 3rd respondent was imposed with penalty alleging unauthorized usage of electricity in a connection provided to him, with Consumer NO. 18754. Question posed is as to whether electric connection can be denied to the petitioner for default committed by the 3rd respondent in paying the amount of penalty.
4. In the counter affidavit the respondents 3 and 4 contended that the 3rd respondent was the absolute owner of the property having an extent of 1 Acer 41 Cents and he had obtained permit from the Grama Panchayat for developing the aforesaid land. It is conceded that in July 2008 he applied for power allocation for 12 villas to be constructed in the said property, as per Exhibit R3(a). But thereafter the 3rd respondent had assigned the property to different persons, who in turn entrusted construction of villas with the 4th respondent. Since the 3rd respondent had already assigned the property to various persons, who became rightful owners of the respective properties, he had submitted an application as per Exhibit R3(b) for cancellation of the request for power allocation. Thereafter on 10.07.2011 the 2nd respondent issued a letter to the 3rd respondent requesting to remit a sum of Rs.3,54,464/-for power allocation, being amount required under the OYEC Scheme. But the 3rd respondent took the stand that he had already intimated cancellation of the application for power allocation.
5. It is admitted that the Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the property on 10.07.2012 and penalty to the tune of Rs.11,68,000/-was imposed on the 3rd respondent, alleging unauthorized extension of 32KW power for construction of 4 villas. It is stated that among the 12 villas proposed in the property, 7 villas constructed by the 4th respondent were already transferred into the name of the respective buyers.
6. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is contended that the stand taken in Exhibit P4 is legal and justified in view of Regulation 12 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005. Respondents have produced Annexure R2(a) notification issued by the Kerala State Regulatory Commission, amending Regulation 12 of the Supply Code which insist that for getting connection the purchaser has to deposit amount equivalent to the arrears due with respect to any previous connection existed in the property, excluding interest, which shall be reimbursed as and when released from the previous owner. It is stated that the penal bill was challenged by the 3rd respondent before this court in WP (C) 16740/12. subsequently, the 3rd respondent had also filed another writ petition against the final bill as WP(C) no. 19087/2012, and further a Writ Appeal as W.A. 1578/2012. This Court held
