AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Basant Balaji, J
The petitioner approached this Court for the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibit P7 disconnection notice of the 5th respondent.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 5th respondent to restore the electricity connection in the residential building of the petitioner for a reasonable period of time to be fixed by this Honourable Court so as to enable the petitioner to find an alternate accommodation.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to defer all the further proceedings pursuant to award No. 51/2024 dated 29.07.2024 of the 2nd respondent.”
Land acquisition proceedings were initiated for the construction of a bridge at Puthiyapalam, Kozhikode. An extent of 0.007 hectors of land were notified for the acquisition. As per the alignment fixed by the authorities, the petitioner will lose her house. Thereafter, notice was issued under Form 12 of the Rules under the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, and an award was passed as award No.51/2024 on 29.07.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 application under Section 64 of the Act for reference to the authority.
After the acquisition proceedings ended in passing of award, the 3rd respondent sent a notice to respondents 4 and 5 to effect the disconnection of the power supply into the house so that possession could be taken. On receipt of the said notice, respondents 4 and 5 went to the premises and found that the house is locked; therefore, the electricity connection was disconnected. After effecting the disconnection, Ext.P7 notice has been issued to the petitioner informing that the electricity connection has been disconnected.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Regulation 139 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, a prior notice has to be issued to the owner of the premises if the Electricity Board wants to disconnect the power supply already in existence. There is no notice was issued to the petitioner before the disconnection, and Ext.P7 was only issued after the disconnection. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under the Regulation is not complied with by respondents 4 and 5.
In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the procedure adopted by the respondents 4 and 5 in disconnecting the power supply is illegal. Therefore, Ext.P7 stands quashed. The 5th respondent is directed to restore the electricity connection back to the house of the petitioner, within three days from today. As the house is already acquired and possession is to be taken, the 5th respondent shall give further notice regarding disconnection and proceed further.
The writ petition is disposed of.