Kerala High Court
Jaseentha James vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 13 September, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
R.P.No.916 of 2024 in
W.P.(C) No. 41011 of 2023
2024:KER:70246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024/22ND BHADRA, 1946
RP NO. 916 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN
WP(C) NO.41011 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
JASEENTHA JAMES
AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.JAMES,
PUZHAKULANGARA, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670141
BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
JOGGY MATHUNNI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER,
PIN - 695004
2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SECTION, TALIPARAMBA,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670141
3 MUHAMMED SHAFEEQ
S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI,
RASHEED MANZIL, MANNA,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670141
RIJI RAJENDRAN, SRI.B.PREMOD.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.916 of 2024 in
W.P.(C) No. 41011 of 2023
:2:
2024:KER:70246
ORDER
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2024
The writ petition was filed by the review petitioner seeking
to restore electricity connection to the Dance and Music
Institution being run by the petitioner.
2. After hearing the parties, this Court found that
according to the landlord, he has given on rent an unnumbered
hall to the petitioner. Therefore, no electricity connection can be
given to an unnumbered hall. This Court noted that the
petitioner is not in a position to furnish relevant building details
for the hall as stipulated by Regulation 45 of the Electricity
Supply Code.
3. This Court noted that as regards the electricity
connection to the premises claimed to be shared by the
petitioner along with one Sindhu Jayan, Regulation 52 of the
Electricity Supply Code provides that supply shall be given only
R.P.No.916 of 2024 in
2024:KER:70246
at one point for the same purpose at the same voltage level in
a single premises. Therefore, a second connection cannot be
provided to the petitioner in the same premises.
4. The review petitioner submits that the judgment
suffers from error apparent on the face of records. The Counsel
for the review petitioner specifically points out that the finding of
this Court that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish
relevant building details for the hall as stipulated by Regulation
45 of the Electricity Supply Code is not correct. The rent deed
in respect of the premises is before this Court. Therefore, the
said finding is erroneous.
5. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal and Another v. M/s.
M.S.S.Food Products [(2012) 2 SCC 196], the counsel for the
review petitioner argued that if the High Court has not
considered an issue of fact, the proper course available to the
appellants is to bring to the notice of the High Court this aspect
R.P.No.916 of 2024 in
2024:KER:70246
by filing a review petition. The Counsel for the petitioner also
relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Chandu
Khamaru v. Nayan Malik and others [(2011) 12 SCC 314],
Dilip (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Satish and others [2022 SCC
OnLine SC 810] and a judgment of this Court in Vincent K.V.
v. Assistant Engineer and others [2017 (2) KLT 1021] in
support of his case.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the review
petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel representing the
3rd respondent.
7. The specific case of the petitioner in the writ petition
was that there were two electricity connections with two meters
in the building occupied by him with separate consumer
numbers. When two persons are using one building, there is no
bar in allotting two consumer numbers. According to the
petitioner, two separate connections were in existence in the
R.P.No.916 of 2024 in
2024:KER:70246
building. Therefore, the action of disconnecting the electricity
connection provided to the petitioner is highly illegal and
unsustainable.
8. This Court found that the 3rd respondent landlord has
controverted the statements made by the petitioner. The
landlord submitted that he has given on rent to the petitioner
only an unnumbered hall, where there is no electricity
connection. The crux of the argument of the Counsel for the
review petitioner is that Exts.P1 and P2 would indicate that the
petitioner is in legal occupation of the premises.
9. It is to be noted that the KSEB cannot give electricity
connection to an unnumbered building. The hall rented out to
the petitioner is not numbered. There is factual dispute as
regards the premises actually occupied by the petitioner. It is
the case of the landlord that a portion of the building given to
one Sindhu Jayan was occupied by the petitioner with the
consent of Sindhu Jayan.
R.P.No.916 of 2024 in
2024:KER:70246
10. In the afore fact, I do not find any error apparent on
the face of the records warranting interference.
The review petition is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
APA
