P.M. Anees vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 4792 Ker

          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

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. 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

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

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