C.M. KURIAKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a senior citizen, is aggrieved by Ext.P6 communication that has been issued to him by the respondent Board, threatening the petitioner with disconnection of the electric supply to his premises, on the ground that, they have been advised by the 3rd respondent Panchayat to disconnect supply of electricity to the said premises. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that there were various disputes between him and a neighbour by name Sri.P.V.Baby, and at the instance of said Sri.Baby, proceedings were initiated against him by the 3rd respondent Panchayat, as evident from Ext.P8 letter issued by the District Medical Officer to the petitioner, asking him to take remedial measures to abate the nuisance that was caused to the said complainant. The writ petition also makes reference to Exts.P9 to P12 notices, issued by the 3rd respondent Panchayat to the petitioner, asking him to take steps to ensure that his premises are kept in a hygienic condition, and measures taken to abate nuisance caused to the neighbouring property owners. It is not in dispute that in response to the said notices issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent Panchayat, the petitioner has preferred detailed replies as evidenced by Exts.P10 and P13. In the meanwhile, acting on the basis of Ext.R3(b) communication issued by it to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent by Ext.P7 communication addressed to the 2nd respondent Board sought for a disconnection of the electric supply to the petitioner's premises alleging that, the petitioner had been conducting business in the premises without adhering to the norms stipulated by the 3rd respondent Panchayat for carrying on the same. It would appear that, the 2nd respondent, acting on the basis of Ext.P7 communication, issued Ext.P6 letter to the petitioner proposing a disconnection of electric supply to his premises. As already noted, in the writ petition, Ext.P6 communication is impugned, inter alia, on the ground that, it was not open to the 2nd respondent to issue a letter proposing disconnection at the instance of the 3rd respondent Panchayat.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, wherein it is stated that pursuant to the complaint received from neighbours of the petitioner, the petitioner was proceeded against by the respondent Panchayat through the notices aforementioned. It is stated that, on receipt of the reply submitted by the petitioner, and finding the same to be unsatisfactory, the 3rd respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner to close down the lodge, which also was not complied with by the petitioner. Ext.R3(b) is the notice dated 20.06.2016 stated to have been served on the petitioner. The 3rd respondent also relies on an inspection report of the Deputy Director of Panchayat (Ext.R3(c)) to contend that the lodge conducted by the petitioner is without any valid license from the 3rd respondent Panchayat. In justification of Ext.P6 communication issued to the petitioner by the Electricity Board, it is stated that it was on finding that the petitioner had not complied with the lawful directions issued to him by the 3rd respondent Panchayat, that the Panchayat was constrained to issue Ext.P7 letter to the Electricity Board asking them to take consequential steps for disconnecting the electric supply to the premises of the petitioner. 2A. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the Electricity Board, the learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 4.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, while it is a fact that the 3rd respondent Panchayat has initiated proceedings against the petitioner for alleged violations of various provisions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules, Ext.P6 communication issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent Board is one that is issued in purported exercise of the powers of the respondent Board under the Electricity Act and Rules. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent Board has not been able to point out any provision that would enable the Board to disconnect electricity supply to the petitioner, based on a mere instruction to that effect given by the 3rd respondent Panchayat. A statutory authority acting under the provisions of the Electricity Act is obliged to comply with the procedural requirements under the said Act, before proceeding to disconnect electric supply to the premises of a consumer. Inasmuch as in the instant case, there was no default committed by the petitioner vis-a-vis the Electricity Board, I am of the view that, Ext.P6 communication issued to the petitioner cannot be legally sustained, I therefore quash Ext.P6 communication of the 2nd respondent. Taking note of the pending issues between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent Panchayat, while disposing this writ petition by quashing Ext.P6 communication, I also direct the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P9 and P12 notices already issued to the petitioner, and any subsequent notice issued thereafter to the petitioner, after considering Exts.P10 and P12 replies submitted by the petitioner, and hearing the petitioner. To enable the 3rd respondent Panchayat to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the Secretary of the 3rd respondent Panchayat at his office at 11 am on 10.07.2017. The Secretary of the 3rd respondent Panchayat shall pass orders as directed within three weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed as above.