AJITH Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of Building No. 16/287 A. D. Puram Road, Cochin-5. He is a consumer of electricity, his consumer number being No. 7019. There are two rooms in the building. They were rented out. The tenants left the room in February, 1986, since the electricity supply was disconnected in January, 1986. When the tenants vacated, the petitioner contacted the respondent and he was informed that the arrears of electricity charges amounted to Rs. 8000/ . It is stated that the arrears are from 1982 onwards. Petitioner could not raise the entire amount immediately. He approached the respondent and submitted an application to allow him to remit the arrears in instalments and to give him re-connection. It was turned down. The respondent demanded that the petitioner must pay the slab amount of Rs. 144/ per month from January, 1986 to December, 1986. During this period the electric power remained disconnected. The petitioner is not bound to pay the slab amount. Even then the respondent is compelling the petitioner to pay the whole slab amount. Petitioner submitted Ext. P1 application dated 31-12-1986 before the Superintending Engineer, KSEB, Ernakulam. He went through the application, recommended the same and forwarded it to the respondent through the petitioner on 31-12-1986 itself. The respondent was not prepared to effect re-connection until the entire slab amount of Rs. 144/- per month from January, 1986 to December, 1986 was paid. The respondent sent a reply, Ext. P2, stating that instalment shall not be allowed to the petitioner. Ext. P2 is attacked as illegal. The petitioner is not bound to pay the entire amount imposed on him. The recommendation of the superior officer has proved futile en this matter. The petitioner is compelled to approach this Court. Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to effect re-connection of power supply to consumer No. M. S.7019 and also prays for direction to the respondent commanding him to facilitate instalment payment to the petitioner.

(2.) When the original petition came up for admission on 8-1-1987, this Court directed Mr. Koshi, Standing Counsel for the KSEB, to clarify the position. Accordingly, Mr. Koshi appeared and the matter was heard on 14-1-1987. I beard counsel for the petitioner Mr. John Joseph as also counsel for the respondent Mr. Koshi.

(3.) The main complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent is compelling the petitioner to remit the slab amount of Rs. 144/- per month from January, 1986 to December, 1986 and is refusing to permit the petitioner to remit the arrears in instalments and to give him re-connection. He has also stated that he has submitted Ext. P1 application before the Superintending Engineer. The further definite averment is that the Superintending Engineer, KSEB, "went through the application, recommended the same, and forwarded the same through the petitioner on 31-12-1986 itself" (paragraph 4 of the original petition). It is also stated that "the recommendation of the superior officer has been proved futile in the matter. Hence this petitioner is compelled to approach this Honourable Court invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India" (paragraph 6 of the original petition).