ABDUL WAHAB Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The said application is filed by the review petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 1103 days in filing the review petition. The judgment in which review sought was dismissed on 12.11.2015. The case projected by the petitioner is that, later when coercive proceedings were initiated to sell the property of the petitioner, W.P.(C). 34933/2018 was filed, which was disposed on 29.11.2018, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the Division Bench seeking review of the judgment in WA No.1867/2015 and till 20.12.2018, the coercive proceedings were directed to be kept in abeyance. The record of proceedings show that the review petition was filed on 22.12.2018 and it was lying dormant in the registry till it was posted before the bench on 13.08.2021 for condoning delay of 206 days in re-presenting the review petition after curing the defect. On that day the re-presentation delay was condoned.

(2.) The paramount contention advanced in the delay condonation petition is that the petitioner is entitled to secure the benefit of regulation 40 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, and that was not a subject matter considered in the writ petition, leading to the writ appeal in question. It is also stated that the petitioner was bonafidely prosecuting the subject matter before the respondents, i.e., the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd and its officials. It is further submitted that in response to the request for grant of benefit of one time settlement scheme, the 3rd respondent i.e., the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Chelari, Malappuram district, issued a letter dated 26.07.2018. Thereupon, petitioner intended to avail fresh electricity connection to the premises and consequently petitioner sought legal advice, and in terms of the same, the representation dated 7.8.2018 was submitted before the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd in order to avail the benefit under regulation 40 (3) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014. It is also pointed out that, due to the inaction on the part of the respondents to consider the representation, petitioner had to file W.P.(C).No.34933/2018 before this Court, specified above. It is further submitted that, after the disposal of the said writ petition, petitioner has submitted an application for the issuance of the certified copy of the judgment in W.A.No.1867/2015 on 29.11.2018 and it was secured on 01.12.2018. These are the reasons shown by the petitioner to condone the huge delay of 1103 days in filing the review petition.

(3.) On a proper evaluation of the reasons assigned in the affidavit, it can be seen that, no reasons are assigned at all for condonation of the delay occurring from the date of the judgment in W.A. No.1867/2015, i.e., 12th day of November 2015 up to the date of filing of W.P.(C).No.34933/2018. That apart, the reasons assigned in the affidavit clearly shows that, petitioner has approached the writ court by filing the subsequent writ petition only when coercive action to sell off the property was taken by the Kerala State Electricity Board in order to recover the arrears of an amount of Rs.7140597/- (Seventy One Lakhs Forty Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Seven only). This we say because, even according to the petitioner, the certified copy of the judgment in writ appeal was applied for only on 29.11.2018, i.e., after three years of the judgment in writ appeal. More over an incompetent writ proceedings instituted subsequent to the dismissal of the writ appeal upholding the recovery proceedings cannot be termed as a bonafide prosecution of any proceeding, entitling the petitioner to get the delay condoned on the basis of the pendency of the said writ petition. Moreover, yet another ground shown in the delay petition is that the issue with respect to the benefit of regulation 40 (3) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 was not considered by the Division Bench in the writ appeal in question . Since , the petitioner has a contention that, by virtue of regulation 40 (3) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 petitioner is not liable to pay the arrears due from the previous owner of the property and therefore, the property purchased by the petitioner cannot be proceeded with, we propose to consider the merits of the said argument in order to identify as to whether any matter of substantial justice was involved in the matter and if so whether it was overlooked by the Division Bench.