AJANTHA KUMARA

Vs.

CEYLON ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
J. DE SILVA, J.
FERNANDO, J.
CA/WRIT/100/2017
MARCH 19, 2019

Supply of electricity-Section 25(1) of Electricity Act, No. 20 of 2009- Right of owner or occupier to obtain electricity supply

The petitioner made an application to the Ceylon Electricity Board to obtain a supply of electricity, having satisfied all the requirements and having made all necessary payments. The Divisional Secretary carrying out its delegated authority on behalf of the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka approved the request for a supply of electricity. At the point of erection of the pylons, a dispute was raised by the general railways contending that the portion of land was a railway reservation and not owned by the petitioner. As a result of the said dispute, the Ceylon

Electricity Board suspended the process of supplying electricity to the petitioner. The petitioner instituted these proceedings seeking a writ of mandamus against the Ceylon Electricity Board.

Held:

1. There was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner was a squatter or an unlawful occupier of the premises and therefore the petitioner is qualified to make an application for the supply of electricity for the purposes of section 25(1) of the Electricity Act, No. 20 of 2009.

2. The Ceylon Electricity Board is under a statutory duty to supply electricity to the petitioner, as the petitioner has complied with the requirements under the Act.

3. Electricity is no longer a luxury but a fundamental requirement which is necessary for comfortable living, and the Ceylon Electricity Board is obliged to supply electricity provided all the legal requirements are satisfied.

Cases referred to:

1. Municipal Council of Badulla v. Ratnayake (1978-79] 2 Sri LR 141
2. G.C.A. Corea v. Urban Council Kotte and others 62 NLR 60
3. Gunaratne and another v. Ceylon Electricity Board and others [1991] 1 Sri LR 239

APPLICATION for Writ of Mandamus.

Nimal Jayasinghe with Nivanthi Thilakaratne for the Petitioner.

Maithree Amerasinghe, S.C., for the 1st, 9th and 12th Respondents.

cur. adv. vult.

June 7, 2019

J. DE SILVA, J.

The Petitioner is the donee of the land morefully described in the deed of gift No. 3734 dated 30.07.2016 (P1). The Petitioner submitted an application and paid the service connection fees to the 1st Respondent to obtain an electricity connection to the house situated on the said land (P4). He further paid Rs. 15,960/= as the security deposit and service connection charge to the 1st Respondent (P5).

The 11th Respondent, to whom the power has been delegated in terms of the Sri Lanka Electricity (Amendment) Act No. 31 of 2013 to hold inquiries regarding disputes that may arise in connection with the supply of electricity, held an inquiry into the application of the Petitioner and by letter dated July 2016 (P6) recommended to supply electricity to the Petitioner's premises.

The 11th Respondent submitted his recommendations to the Public Utlllties Commission as well for the supply of electricity to the Petitioners premises which was approved (P7). However, the Petitioner claims that he has not yet been supplied with electricity and moves that a writ of mandamus is issued compelling the 1st to 9th Respondents to supply electricity to the Petitioners premises.

The 1st to 9th Respondents do not dispute the material facts. They explain the circumstances leading to the delay in supplying electricity to the premises of the Petitioner and conclude by stating that when the 1st Respondent was attempting to install pylons in the proximity of the Petitioner's premises, the Railways Department had objected to drawing the line across the identified route to the premises of the Petitioner claiming that "the venue of the Petitioner forms part of the railway reservation". They state further that the 1st Respondent has temporarily suspended the process until the matter has been resolved b