Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34006
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
THANALOTTU MOIDEEN – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 25612/2014
Legal protections must be adhered to in tenancy-related disputes, especially regarding essential services like power supply.
Headnote:
Power - Tenancy - Relevant Act Section List - This case revolves around the disconnection of power supply linked to a tenancy dispute, where the court directed the consideration of the petitioner's application for restoration of power under relevant laws, emphasizing the need for due process in such matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought restoration of power supply after it was disconnected at the request of the landlord amid a tenancy dispute. The landlord attempted to evict the petitioner without following legal procedures.
Issues: The core issue was whether the disconnection of power supply was lawful when contested by the tenant, and if the tenant's request for restoration should be considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that tenants are entitled to legal protections in regards to their rights, and any actions regarding utility disconnections must adhere to proper legal processes.
Final Decision: The court directed restoration of the power supply subject to conditions, requiring timely action by the relevant authorities.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to be given to the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the power supply, which was originally there with consumer No.6009 in LT-a Tariff in respect of the building No.IV/563 of Muzhakkunnu Grama Panchayat.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is the tenant of the third respondent and was residing in the concerned building . However, there was some dispute with regard to the tenancy between the petitioner and the third respondent, who wanted to evict the petitioner somehow or other, without having any course as provided under the relevant provisions of law. It was in furtherance to such a step that the third respondent approached the second respondent by filing a representation seeking for disconnection of the power supply in relation to consumer No.6009 and the same was readily acted upon by the second respondent, i.e. the power supply was disconnected, detrimental to the rights and interest of the petitioner. Despite submitting request to have it considered, the same is kept in the cold storage and hence the writ petition.
3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 1.10.2014, urgent notice on admission was ordered to the respondents by speed post returnable within ten days. Despite the completion of service of notice, the 3rd respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court. It appears that the third respondent does not have any dispute in considering the claim of the petitioner as raised in the writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel submits that, the petitioner has submitted a request to effect the restoration of power supply on 5.9.2014 as per Ext.P5. The said application can be considered as a fresh application for giving connection subject to satisfaction of the due amount under the relevant provisions of law.
5. In the said circumstance, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 so as to provide power supply to the petitioner's premises subject to satisfaction of all requirements in accordance with law, at the cost of the petitioner. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
