BIJI JOLLY, W/O. JOLLY Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHIUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a house wife and also runs a sole proprietorship concern engaged in making food items, is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in taking a decision on the request of the petitioner for converting the existing single phase electric connection to a three phase electric connection, in relation to the shop rooms of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not considering her application since it is the stand of the 2nd respondent that the land, on which the building of the petitioner stands, is one that is covered by an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. CC Nos.5049, 5066 and 5067 of 2007 to maintain status quo with regard to construction, on lands that form the subject matter of the aforesaid cases before the Supreme Court. It is the case of the petitioner that, the building owned by him, and for which the electric connection is sought, is not one that would be affected by the status quo order passed by this Court at first instance, and thereafter, by the Supreme Court in the SLPs aforementioned, as the building was constructed prior to, and was in existence at the time of, the status quo orders. It is contended, therefore, that the status quo order need not stand in the way of the 2nd respondent granting a three phase electric connection to the building of the petitioner, if the petitioner otherwise satisfies the requirement for getting the same.

(2.) In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the stand taken is that the building in question is situated in land that is covered by the status quo order of this Court in W.A.Nos.227, 224 and 574 of 2001, as well as the status quo order of the Supreme Court dated 10.07.2007 in S.L.P. CC Nos.5049, 5066 and 5067 of 2007. It is stated, therefore, that a three phase electricity connection cannot be granted to those buildings, which are on lands affected by the status quo order passed by this Court/Supreme Court, and it is therefore that the respondents have expressed their inability to accede to the request of the petitioner for a three phase electric connection. My attention is also drawn to the judgment dated 17.10.2016 of a learned single judge in W.P(C).No.29579 of 2016, as affirmed by the judgment dated 28.10.2016 in W.A.No.2131 of 2016 of the Division Bench, which takes note of a situation where there was an alteration of the status quo by a construction that was effected on the land, and under those circumstances, this Court found that, the petitioners therein could not take advantage of a violation committed against the status quo order, while seeking electric connection to the new construction put up by them in violation of the status quo order. On a consideration of the facts in the instant case, however, I find that, the petitioner has, through the documents produced as Exts.P8 and P9 in the writ petition, clearly shown that the building, to which the electric connection is sought, is one that was in existence well prior to the date of the status quo order passed by this Court, and hence, there would be no violation of the status quo order passed by this Court/Supreme Court if a three phase electric connection is granted to the said building belonging to the petitioner. I am therefore of the view that, the mere pendency of the Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, and the status quo order passed therein with regard to alteration of the nature of the land and fresh constructions thereupon, need not be a reason to deny the petitioner the benefit of a three phase electric connection, to the building that was in existence prior to the date of the status quo order passed by this Court/Supreme Court in the cases referred above. Accordingly, I dispose the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for upgrading the electric connection to her shop rooms, from a single phase to three phase electric connection, on merits and, if the petitioner is found to satisfy the conditions required for a grant of the same, to grant the said electric connection within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.