IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 9TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WA NO. 538 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2022 IN WP(C) NO.8906/2022
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
P.M. ANEES,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI,
AGED 39 YEARS, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE,
THYCAUD P.O. GURUVAYOOR-680104
THRRISSUR.
BY ADVS. SRI. R.S.KALKURA
SRI. M.S.KALESH
SRI. HARISH GOPINATH
SRI. P.I.NAJUMAL HUSSAIN
SMT. ANJALI B CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY REVENUE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, CHAVAKKAD
THRISSUR--680506
3 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695004
4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SECTION,
GURUVAYOOR-680101
W.A.No.538/2022
-:2:-
5 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
GURUVAYOOR-680101
6 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,
IRINJALAKKUDA, TRICHUR- 680121
7 THE SPECIAL OFFICER
REVENUE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695004
8 THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE)
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE),
VYDYUTHI BHAVAN
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695004
R1 BY MANOJ RAMASWAMY
R3 BY A.G. SATYANARAYANAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.538/2022
-:3:-
Dated this the 29th day of April,2022
J U D G M E N T
C.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8906/2022 is the appellant. The judgment in the said writ petition dated 29.03.2022 of the learned Single Judge is impugned in this appeal.
2. The issue pertains to the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant/petitioner in respect of the dues towards electricity charges to the tune of Rs.14.78 lakh. The appellant/petitioner contends that the premises having electricity connection was sold as per Ext.P1 sale deed as far back as on 2007, wherefore, the present demand dated 01.06.2018 pertains to consumption made by the purchaser. The same is therefore liable to be recovered from the purchaser and not from the appellant/petitioner.
3. The learned Single Judge found that, going by Regulation 91 of the Electricity Supply Code, a consumer is not entitled to assign or transfer or part with the benefit of the service W.A.No.538/2022 -:4:- connection agreement executed with the distribution licensee. In the event of transfer of ownership/occupancy, an application has to be preferred in the format specified in Annexure-8. Thereafter, the transferee will have to pay the required security and execute a fresh service connection agreement. The learned Single Judge found that the electric connection has not been transferred in the name of the purchaser; nor was a fresh agreement entered into by and between the purchaser and the Board. Therefore, the revenue recovery proceedings could not have been initiated against a third party, is the finding of the learned Single Judge. It was further found that the petitioner will be entitled to recover the amount in accordance with law from the vendee, but cannot avoid payment of arrears on the ground that the ownership of the property has been transferred by way of a registered document.
4. Heard Sri. R.S. Kalkura, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri.B. Premod, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board. W.A.No.538/2022 -:5:-
5. Having heard the learned counsel, we find little merit in this writ appeal. The judgment impugned is not smeared with any illegality. The supply of electrical energy is based on a contract executed between the distribution licensee and the consumer. The Electricity Supply Code regulates the supply of electrical energy. Admittedly, the contract by and between the appellant/petitioner and the distribution licensee continued, dehors the transfer claimed vide Ext.P11 sale deed of the year 2007. No application was filed in Annexure-8 format as required by Regulation 91(2) of the Electricity Supply Code; nor was a fresh service connection agreement executed with the purchaser in terms of Clause 3 of Regulation 91, with the result, there exists no privity of contract by and between the Board and the purchaser, so as to enable the former to recover the dues from the latter. In the absence of privity of contract with the purchaser and when the contract with the appellant/petitioner continues, we find nothing illegal in the stand of the Board in seeking W.A.No.538/2022 -:6:- recovery of the dues from appellant/petitioner.
6. We also find that the writ petition is ill-constituted. The purchaser, who is very much a necessary party, having regard to the nature of the reliefs sought for, has not been arraigned as a respondent in the writ appeal. We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgment, particularly when the appellant is permitted to claim refund the amount from the purchaser, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 5 of the Kerala High Courts Act, 1958.
7. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner sought for permission to pay off the dues by 14 monthly instalments. The request of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner was not seriously opposed by the learned Standing Counsel, but expressed a reservation that the total number of instalments shall not exceed 10.
8. We, therefore, dispose the Writ Appeal by confirming the impugned judgment in W.P. (C)No.8906/2022, but for the limited purpose of permitting the appellant to pay the arrears in W.A.No.538/2022 -:7:- instalments by issuing the following directions:
(i) The entire dues outstanding shall be paid by the appellant/petitioner in 10 equated monthly instalments, the first instalment commencing from 01.07.2022.
(ii) Revenue recovery proceedings and coercive steps, if any, shall be kept in abeyance, so long as the appellant/petitioner complies with condition No.1 above.
(iii) In case of default, of any one instalment, the revenue recovery proceedings will stand revived from the stage at which it was stayed, for recovery of the then outstanding dues.
Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN,JUDGE
DST/30.04.22 //True copy/
P.A.To Judge