Disputes related to the interpretation of contractual agreements cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution, and petitioners are directed to pursue alternative remedies.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

All these writ petitions essentially challenge the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). Therefore, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

W.P.(C) No.19438 of 2022

2. The contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner has taken the KSEB poles on rent for cable TV business and immediately after the execution of the agreement with the Board, he has transferred the entire cable TV business along with the poles to one Sri.C.Rajan, who was the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2019. As there was default in payment of the pole rent on the part of said Sri.C.Rajan, the Board has issued notices for initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner. Petitioner would submit that on receipt of said notices, by Ext.P9 communication said Sri.C.Rajan has intimated the Board that the poles have been transferred to his name and in respect of the liability that is due to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19438 of 2022 he is taking responsibility and whatever amount due will be paid by him. Without considering the said request made by said Sri.C.Rajan as well as the petitioner the Board has proceeded with the revenue recovery proceedings. It is in the said circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P16 revenue recovery proceedings initiated. Over and above the contention that the poles have been transferred to Sri.C.Rajan based on an agreement the petitioner would contend that the proceedings now initiated is barred by limitation in as much as arrears of rent from 2012 have been claimed by the Board, which is impermissible.

3. A detailed counter affidavit as well as an additional counter affidavit has been filed by the Board. In the counter affidavit filed on 05.11.2024 the Board would contend that as there was pole rent arrears from the petitioner notices were issued to the petitioner and relying on clause 19 of the agreement it is the contention of the Board that the transfer, if any, to third parties without the consent of the Board is void and since the present transfer, if any, was without notice to the Board, the Board is not bound by the said transfer effected by the petitioner. Further, it is to be noted that an interim order was granted by this Court on 04.04.2023 on a condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs. Challenging the same petitioner has filed W.A.No.1193 of 2023 which was subsequently dismissed. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not comply with the interim direction. The Board would further contend that the agreement is for a period of ten years and the petitioner did not renew the agreement after its expiry on 23.01.2018 and it is thereafter that the proceedings were initiated and therefore the question of limitation does not arise.

W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2019

4. This writ petition is filed by one Sri.C.Rajan. It is contended that though the said Rajan expired while the writ petition was pending, no legal heirs has been impleaded. But in the place of getting impleaded in the said writ petition and contesting the matter, one of the legal heirs of said Rajan, Smt.Ranjima Rajan has filed another writ petition as W.P.(C) No.11013 of 2024, which is also being considered along with these writ petitions. In W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2019 also similar contentions were raised including a contention that the demand now raised is barred by limitation since the amount allegedly due from the petitioner is from 2010 and 2012. The further contention raised by the petitioner is that since there was arrears in payment of pole rent the cables drawn on the basis of the agreement were dismantled in 2