P T THOMAS Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant set up a factory for manufacture of timber products in Small Scale sector in the Pathanamthitta District of Kerala and applied for electricity connection to the Opposite Party (K.S.E.B.) in 1986. For this purpose he deposited a sum of Rs. 72,100/- on 2nd of July, 1986 by way of contribution under the contribution scheme then in vogue for drawing 11 KV line and installing metering equipment at the factory site. He had asked for supply of 130 KVA power.

(2.) According to the complainant the Opposite Party did not take any action to instal the line till the first week of April, 1987. Thereafter there was delay in the drawing of high tension line because two owners of the paddy fields through which the line was proposed to be drawn, obtained stay orders from the Court of the Munsiff, Tiruvalla. One of these owners also filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala against the proposal to draw the line over his paddy field. The grievance of the complainant is that the Opposite Party Electricity Board did not follow the correct procedure by approaching the District Magistrate for sanction to draw the line through private property resulting in avoidable delay till the petitions of the objecting owners of the paddy fields were dismissed and stay orders vacated. In the case of one owner, the petition against the drawal of the transmission line was finally disposed of on 24th of May, 1989 and in the second on the 5th of November, 1989.

(3.) According to the complainant even after the Court cases were dismissed, the Opposite Party Electricity Board did not take any action to give electricity connection to the petitioner. The transmission line was drawn to the factory site of 11th of April, 1990 but the metering equipment was not installed because the Opposite Party did not advise the petitioner regarding the formalities to be completed for giving power connection and in particular, for executing the high tension supply agreement. This agreement was executed only in May, 1991 but the power connection has still not been given. According to the petitioner his factory has suffered loss because of non-supply of power and that the loss incurred after the Court case was dismissed on 24th of May, 1989 was entirely due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party.