C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.

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 from the third respondent on 27.03.2009. The building in question was constructed through the fourth 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 3.8.2012. 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 unauthorised 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 acre 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 fourth respondent. Since the third 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 10.7.2011 the 2nd respondent issued a letter to the third 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 10.7.2012 and penalty to the tune of Rs. 11,68,000/- was imposed on the 3rd respondent, alleging unauthorised 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 fourth 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 forgetting 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 W.P. (C) 16740/2012. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent had also filed another Writ Petition against the final bill as W.P. (C) No. 19087/2012, and further a Writ Ap