Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7624
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
DR RAJ MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
ASST ENGINEER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 23389/2017
Tenants have the right to appeal decisions affecting their electricity supply while ensuring compliance with deposit requirements to avoid disconnection.
Headnote:
Electricity - Tenant Rights - Electricity Act - Sections 126, 127 - This judgment highlights tenant rights and obligations concerning electricity supply, emphasizing the need for prompt statutory appeals and compliance with deposit requirements to avoid disconnection.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant facing potential disconnection of electricity due to the landlord's unpaid dues confirmed by an order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, seeks relief to restore the electricity supply while preparing to appeal the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the order under Section 127, stipulating the deposit of 50% of the confirmed charges as a condition for maintaining the appeal, and ordered the restoration of electricity supply pending the appeal.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, as a tenant, is entitled to a restoration of electricity supply while appealing an order issued against the landlord under the Electricity Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that tenants can seek relief through appeals under the Electricity Act, contingent on fulfilling statutory obligations such as deposit requirements to maintain electricity supply.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed with directions for appeal and restoration of electric supply.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who is a tenant in a building, is aggrieved by Ext.P9 order passed by the respondents under Section 126 of the Electricity Act . It is seen from the said order that, an amount of Rs.78,135/- has been confirmed towards fixed charges and energy charges against the consumer of the respondent Board, who in the instant case is the landlord of the building where the petitioner is the tenant. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that, there is a dispute between the landlord and the petitione,r and on account of the said dispute, while the landlord did not honour the dues to the Electricity Board, the petitioner is faced with a disconnection of electric supply to his premises. The petitioner states that he will prefer a statutory appeal against Ext.P9 order before the appellate authority, but he requires sometime to prefer the appeal and he prays that in the meanwhile, the respondents may be directed to restore the electric supply to the premises.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, and taking note of peculiar factual circumstances in the instant case, where the petitioner before me is the tenant of a building of which the landlord is the consumer under the respondent Board, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions: i. The petitioner shall within a period from
10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, prefer an appeal against Ext.P9 order before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act . As a condition for maintaining the appeal, and in compliance with the statutory requirement of deposit of half the amount confirmed against the petitioner, he shall remit 50% of the fixed charges confirmed against him under Ext.P9 (ie. 50% of Rs.17,040/-) along with the appeal. This direction is issued in the wake of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court inSulabha Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others [ILR 2017 (2) Kerala 609].
ii. The respondents shall forthwith restore electric connection to the premises of the petitioner, and shall continue to keep the supply to the said premises so long as the petitioner continues to remit the periodic energy charges as per the bills raised on him by the respondent Board. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not file the appeal within the time granted in this judgment, he will not get the benefit of this judgment, and the respondents will be free to proceed with the disconnection, and further coercive steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P9 order. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgement, together with a copy of the writ petition before the respondents for further action.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
