DINOOP K.N. Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDUTHI BHAVAN, CALTEX JUNCTION, KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to be a tenant of respondents 4 and 5 in a building which has been allotted door Nos.124 and 125, within the territorial limits of the 3rd respondent Panchayath. The said premises has a carpet area of 600 sq. ft, and the petitioner has been utilising the said space for running a beauty parlour. Ext.P1, produced along with the writ petition, is the rent deed, which shows the basic relationship of landlord and tenant between the 4th and 5th respondents on the one hand, and the petitioner on the other. The petitioner also produces as Ext.P2, a receipt for electricity charges paid to the respondent Board, dated 25.09.2017, to indicate that the electricity charges due to the Board up to 25.09.2017 has been duly discharged by the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the dismantling of the electrical apparatus, and consequent disconnection of electricity to the premises of the petitioner with effect from 16.10.2017. Enquiries made by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent indicated that the dismantling was at the instance of the 4th and 5th respondents, who had brought to the notice of the respondent Board, that the petitioner had resorted to an act of subletting of the premises for a substantial period, and, therefore, he was not entitled to continue as a tenant in the building, on the strength of Ext.P1 rent deed. Exts.P3 and P4 representations submitted by the petitioner before the 1st and 2nd respondents on 19.10.2017 and 21.10.2017, did not yield any positive response from the said respondents, and it is therefore that the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition, seeking a re-connection of electric supply, to the premises where he is functioning as a tenant, and also for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on an application, for renewal of the Dangerous and Offensive license [D and O license], that was submitted by him before the said respondent on 20.10.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that, in Ext.P7 communication that was issued to him by the 3rd respondent, the latter insists on the petitioner obtaining a consent from the landlord as a pre-condition for considering his application for renewal of the D and O license.

(2.) A counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the 4th and 5th respondents, and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit traversing the averments in the said counter affidavit.

(3.) I have heard Sri. K.S.Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned senior counsel Sri. Ramesh Chander, duly assisted by Sri. Bonny Benny appearing on behalf of 4th and 5th respondents, and also Sri. P.A.Ahmed, the learned Standing counsel for the Electricity Board.