Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 49747
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
YESHODHA K – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER – Respondent
WP(C) 28955/2023
SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SUKARNAN, ARUNKUMAR A, BIJU ABRAHAM
The court upheld that electricity supply cannot be disconnected if a lawful occupier is paying for it, emphasizing that disputes over occupancy should be resolved in civil court.
Headnote:(A) Kerala State Electricity Supply Code, 2014 - Regulations 140 and 146 - Disconnection of electricity supply - Petitioners, legal heirs of a deceased consumer, sought disconnection of electricity supply due to a trespasser occupying the premises - Respondents justified non-disconnection based on lawful occupancy of the additional respondent - Court found no illegality in respondents' actions as the additional respondent was paying for the supply. (Paras 12, 13, 15)
(B) Legal Occupancy - The court emphasized that the determination of lawful occupancy versus trespasser status is a matter for civil court, not for administrative bodies. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, wife and son of the deceased, applied for disconnection of electricity supply to a dilapidated building, claiming the additional respondent was a trespasser. They submitted necessary documents and paid disconnection charges. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents acted within their rights under the regulations, as the additional respondent was a lawful occupier paying for the electricity. (Paras 16)
Issues: The main issues were whether the additional respondent was a lawful occupier and if the respondents were obligated to disconnect the supply. (Paras 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents were justified in not disconnecting the supply as long as the additional respondent was paying for it, and the matter of occupancy should be resolved in civil court. (Paras 15, 16)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st of February, 2024 The petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of the registered consumer of an electricity connection provided by the Kerala State Electricity Board, are before this Court seeking to direct the respondents to effect disconnection of supply of electricity Consumer No.1166964010106 within a time limit and restraining the respondents from demanding any additional charges beyond the date of Ext.P4 application.
2. The petitioners are wife and son of the deceased T.Kunhikanna, who had obtained electricity service connection from the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited for the residential house, which is in a dilapidated condition. The petitioners sought dismantling of electricity connection in the prescribed manner. Ext.P4 is the application dated 17.03.2023 submitted by the petitioners for dismantling of electricity connection. The petitioners have paid ₹
disconnection charges of 130/- also, as is evidenced by Ext.P5.
3. The petitioners submit that on 01.04.2023, instead of disconnecting the supply line, the 1st respondent-Assistant Engineer issued a reply stating that the overseer deputed for disconnection was prevented by one T.Jayarajan (additional 3rd respondent herein) and family who claimed to be the occupant of the building. In view of the resistance offered, the 1st respondent-Assistant Engineer demanded from the petitioner production and user of the service connection. Ext.P7 notice was issued in this regard. In response to Ext.P7, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply, enclosing documents as sought for. Ext.P3 Possession Certificate was also provided.
4. The petitioners state that there is no Rental Agreement between the petitioners and the additional 3rd respondent. The additional 3rd respondent is a trespasser. When the petitioners have applied for disconnection of the electric supply and dismantling of the electricity meters, in view of Clause 140 of the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code , 2014, respondents 1 and 2 will have to disconnect supply to the consumer for period as requested by the petitioners. However, the respondents have not disconnected the supply line. Instead, they are permitting a third party to use the electric supply.
5. The petitioners state that it is legally obligatory for the 2nd respondent licensee and its officers to disconnect and dismantle supply. The electricity supply has been given to a dilapidated building remaining unoccupied. Regulation 138(1)(d) obliges the licensee to disconnect the supply, if the supply of electricity is likely to cause health hazard.
6. In any view of the matter, there is no valid tenancy created in respect of the building. The additional 3rd respondent is a trespasser. The respondents have no power or authority to permit supply being continued at the instances of strangers. The petitioners therefore seeks to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to effect disconnection of electricity supply to the premises in question.
7. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit. It is submitted that when the officials of the Board went to visit the premises in pursuance of application for dismantling submitted by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent came from the premises and informed the officials that he is residing in the said premises lawfully and objected to disconnection of the electricity supply.
8. In the light of additional 3rd respondent’s objection, assertion of occupier of the premises and non default of electricity charges, the officials gave up dismantling work and reported the matter to the office. The 1st respondent-Assistant Engineer sent a registered letter with acknowledgment to the petitioners to produce legal documents to establish her ownership claim with respect to the consumer number. The respondents 1 and 2 relied on Regulation No.146 of the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code , 2014 in support of their stand.
9. The respondents 1 and
