P.M. AMBIKA Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is against Ext.P7 show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent. In Ext.P7, the registered consumer of electric connection with consumer No.8510 was required to show cause as to why the supply shall not be disconnected. It is stated in Ext.P7 that the registered consumer, one Sri. Janardhanan Potti, and the 5th respondent herein had requested for dismantling the connection. It is also mentioned that the 4th respondent Grama Panchayat had intimated that the connection is provided in a building which is an unauthorised construction and the Panchayat has not assigned building number. It is also mentioned in Ext.P7 that the Ombudsman had given instructions to disconnect supply to the premises.

(2.) THE dispute has got a chequered history. Respondents 5 and 6 are the present owners of the building. The premises where the electric connection is provided is a Textile Shop. The petitioner is conducting business therein as tenant. According to respondents 5 and 6 the petitioner is not a legal occupant of the said building, but she had managed to get possession of the building from the predecessor in interest of respondents 5 and 6, Sri. Janardhanan Potti. Respondents 5 and 6 have approached this court in WP(C). No.2636/11 contending that the building is situated in violation of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and inspite of the fact that they are ready to demolish the same the authorities of the Grama Panchayat is not taking any action. In Ext.P1 judgment this court directed the Secretary of the 4th respondent Panchayat to consider request made by respondents 5 and 6, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequent to the directions a provisional order was issued by the 4th respondent Panchayat under section 235-W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioner submitted objections against the provisional order. It is stated that the Panchayat has not yet finalised the proceedings. In the meanwhile the petitioner filed a civil suit before the Munsiff Court, Cherthala seeking injunction against forceful eviction. Respondents 5 and 6, their predecessor in interest as well as the 4th respondent Panchayat were made defendants in the suit. Respondents 5 and 6 thereafter approached this court in WP(C).No.18385/11 seeking police protection for demolition of the building. It was contended before this court that in view of the provisional order issued by the Panchayat respondents 5 and 6 cannot be prevented from demolishing the building. But this court in Ext.P3 judgment observed that the question regarding right of occupancy of the petitioner is a matter which cannot be decided herein, in view of pendency of the civil case. Respondents 5 and 6 were given liberty to seek appropriate relief from the civil court. In the meanwhile the 5th respondent had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of KSEB seeking direction for dismantling the electric connection in question. After considering all aspects the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum rendered Ext.P6 order observing that, dismantling of the connection shall be kept pending till verdict of the civil suit. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the 3rd respondent was also a party before the CGRF in Ext.P6 proceedings. That being the position, Ext.P7 notice now issued is totally without jurisdiction and it is issued in suppression of Ext.P6 order of the CGRF, is the contention.

(3.) HEARD ; counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6. Admittedly the petitioner is in occupation of the premises where the electric connection is provided and doing textile business therein. Question as to whether she is liable to be evicted or not is a matter now pending consideration before the civil court. Respondents 5 and 6 have not initiated any steps for evicting the petitioner through any legal proceedings. Presumably the respondents 5 and 6 are taking a stand that the occupation is unauthorised. However, for deciding the issue related to continuation of the electric connection, an adjudication on the legality of occupation of the petitioner is not required. It is evident that the Grama Panchayat had intimated that the building is an unauthorised construction and that the building has not been numbered. It is evident that the petitioner is doing business in the premises since the last so many years. Eventhough it is stated that the Panchayat had issued a provisional order, no proceedings is finalised directing demolition of the building, till date. If the Panchayat takes any such proceedings, existence of the electric connection will not be a hurdle to implement such orders. It is evident from Exts.P3 and P6 that this court as well as the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum had taken consistent stand that the matter need be decided by the competent civil court. That being so I find no justification at all in the 3rd respondent initiating steps for disconnection or dismantling of the electric supply. Therefore I am of the view that Ext.P7 notice cannot be sustained.