Kerala High Court
WP(C)/19344/2023 of SHEMY PAUL, Vs KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., on 17 June 2025
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2023 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 19344 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: SHEMY PAUL,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O K.P. PAUL, KOORPPILLIL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2023 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 19344 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
SHEMY PAUL,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O K.P. PAUL, KOORPPILLIL
HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686691
BY ADVS.
C.DILIP
R.PRADEEP
ANUSHKA VIJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
& MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695004
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,KSEB SECTION-2, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
BY ADV ARUNKUMAR A., SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed, inter-alia, to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner, expeditiously.
2. The petitioner's case is that he had purchased a property and building as per Ext.P1 sale deed from three joint-owners. The petitioner's predecessors-in-interest had applied for an electrical connection to the building covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. However, the adjoining land-owners had objected to the drawing of the electrical line. The dispute was resolved by Ext.P2 order passed by the 5th respondent. The adjoining land owners challenged Ext.P2 order before this Court in WP(C) No.11005/2013. The writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P3 judgment and confirmed in writ appeal by Ext.P4 judgment. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the property and building. But, the respondents 2 and 3 are not granting the electricity connection for the reason that Exts.P2 and P3 judgments are not pronounced in favour of the petitioner. The stand of the respondents 2 and 3 is untenable and unjustifiable.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; Sri.C.Dilip, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Arunkumar A., the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 4 and 5.
4. Indisputably, the petitioner has purchased the property and building covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The petitioner's predecessors-in-interest had applied for an electricity connection to be drawn through the properties of the adjoining land-owners who had objected to the proposal. Nevertheless, by Ext.P2 order, the 5th respondent permitted the petitioner's predecessors-in-interest to draw the electrical line through the objectors' property. Although the adjoining land owners challenged Ext.P2 order before this Court in WP(C) No.11005/2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by Ext.P3 judgment, dismissed the writ petition and the said judgment was confirmed by Ext.P4 judgment, by the Division Bench.
5. A reading of Exts.P2 to P4 substantiates that the petitioner's predecessors-in-interest have been granted the right to draw the electrical line through the property of the adjoining land-owners.
6. Going by the recitals in Ext.P1 sale deed, the right to draw the electrical line is also assigned to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of his predecessors-in-interest.
7. In the above conspectus, I am of the definite view that Exts.P3 and P4 judgments would enure to the benefit of the petitioner and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of Exts.P2 to P4. Consequently, I allow the writ petition. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows:
(i) The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to grant the petitioner an electricity connection on the strength of Exts.P2 to P4 orders/judgments passed in favour of the petitioner's predecessors-in-interest.
(ii) The respondents 1 to 3 shall complete the above exercise in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE rkc/03.07.23
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19344/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF SALE DEED NO.4632/2021 OF S.R.O, KOTHAMANGALAM DATED 30.11.2021 Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF ORDER DATED 06.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.07.2013 IN W.P ( C ) NO 11005 OF 2013 Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02.06.2015 IN W.A NO 338 OF 2014 Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 2 & 3