A RAMACHANDRAN Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Kerala State Electricity Board is bound to give reconnection or new connection under the Electricity (Supply) Act read with Regulations relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy in respect of premises where there were arrears of electricity charges by the previous consumer.

(2.) Appellant purchased an extent of 28 cents of land along with a factory building in Sy. No. 91/6 of Chengamanad Village in a public auction conducted by the Kerala Financial Corporation on 26-6-1990. Previously factory building was owned by one P. Krishnakutty, who availed of loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation for starting the unit by name Jeesha Enterprises. The unit was a consumer of the Board bearing consumer No. 3180. Large amounts were due to the Board by way of electricity charges. Since the amount was not paid by the consumer electric connection was disconnected by the Board on 28-12-1989. Board however could not dismantle the equipment since the unit was under the lock and key of the Corporation. Board later came to know that the unit was purchased by the appellant herein. Consequently they sent a arrear notice and informed the appellant that if the appellant was not willing to take reconnection, Board would take further steps in dismantling the metering equipment.

(3.) Appellant then sent a letter to the Board stating that electrical equipments be not dismantled and that he was willing to take fresh connection. Board was not willing to give the appellant fresh connection. Consequently they sent a communication dated 27-11-1995 to the appellant as well as to the previous consumer stating that if the amount was not paid on or before 13-12-1995, Board would dismantle metering equipment and without further notice recovery proceedings would be initiated for realisation of the dues from the original consumer. Appellant then approached this Court and filed O. P. No. 19356 of 1995 to quash the above mentioned notices and also for a declaration that the appellant was entitled to get fresh connection in premises in Sy. No. 91/6 of Chengamanad Village without paying arrears of the previous consumer. Original Petition was disposed of by this Court permitting the appellant to file a detailed representation before the Board and Board was directed to consider the same within a stipulated time. Appellant accordingly preferred Ext. P 7 representation dated 18-3-1999 requesting the Board to waive the demand in its entirety and also to refund the amount of Rs. 12,556.70 deposited by the appellant as a condition for stay of dismantling of electrical equipment. Representation preferred by the appellant was considered by the Board and Board vide its order dated 5-5-1999 rejected the same. Board informed the appellant that if the appellant desires to enjoy service connection, he should pay arrears due to the Board and execute fresh agreement and furnish additional security. Appellant was also informed that he was not entitled to waiver of arrear of current charges. Aggrieved by said order, appellant preferred the present Writ Petition for a declaration that appellant is not liable to pay arrears of the previous consumer. He also sought for a declaration that Regulation 15(c) of the Regulations relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, which makes the bona fide purchaser liable to pay arrears of the previous consumer, is illegal and ultra vires. Learned single Judge did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Board. Learned single Judge relied on a decision of this Court in Seena B. Kumar v. Asst. Executive Engineer, (1998) 2 KLT 109 : (AIR 1998 Ker 343). Learned single Judge took the view that if the appellant desires of getting fresh connection, he should pay the entire arrears due from the consumer of the premises. Aggrieved by the said judgment, appellant has filed this Writ Appeal.