M.D. Babjan vs Abdul Basheer

B.S. Patil, J.—In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the official memorandum dated 14.07.2014 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec.)-2nd respondent herein, informing respondents 3 to 5 herein who claim to be the owners of the premises in question that approval had been granted for permanent surrender of power supply in respect of the respective installations and that the agreement entered into by the consumer with Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company (CHESCOM) in that regard was deemed to have been terminated with immediate effect. The resultant position is that at the request of respondents 3 to 5 who claim to be the owners of the premises in question in respect whereof electrical installations were given supplying electricity to the premises, the electricity supply was terminated.

Petitioners herein claim to be the occupants of the premises. It is their grievance that the electrical installations in question stood in their names for several years and behind their back in collusion with the respondent-officials, respondents 3 to 5 herein claiming to be the owners had got effected changes of the installations in their names by deleting the names of the petitioners. Thereafter, they have clandestinely moved the 2nd respondent to disconnect the electricity supply on the pretext that they were permanently surrendering the electricity supplied.

It is the grievance of the petitioners that they have been in occupation of the property and the premises constructed in the land which is essentially a slum area. They contend that there is a dispute pending before this Court in W.P. No. 10303/2013 in connection with the declaration/non-declaration of the entire area occupied by the petitioners herein as slum area. But, during the pendency of the writ petition and the dispute, the authorities have disconnected the power supply without providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard by passing the impugned official memorandum produced at Annexures-K to K8.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned official memorandums being arbitrary, unfair and opposed to the principles of natural justice, are liable to be set aside. He also points out that in a civil litigation, a decree has been passed in favour of third parties declaring that they are the owners of the property and therefore respondents 3 to 5 herein have no right or interest over the property.

Counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 strongly supports the action of the 2nd respondent contending inter alia that the installations have been already changed in the name of respondents 3 to 5 after duly notifying the occupants including the petitioners herein and therefore, if at all petitioners were aggrieved, they should have availed the alternative remedy of approaching the Ombudsman in this regard. He takes the court to the statement of objections filed by respondents 3 to 5 to show that similar grievance was made against the change of installation in the names of respondents 3 to 5 by deleting the names of four of the petitioners herein viz., petitioners 1, 2, 9 & 10 (Mr. M.D. Babjan, Mr. Abdul Basheer, Mr. M.P. Mansur Ahamad & Mr. N. Keshava, respectively). These persons had challenged the endorsements issued by the 2nd respondent by approaching the District Consumer Forum, Mandya. The District Consumer Forum allowed the dispute raised by them, as against which writ petitions were filed before this Court by the present respondents 3 to 5. The said writ petitions were allowed holding that there was an alternative remedy available to the present writ petitioners mentioned herein above with the Ombudsman under the provisions of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004. Copies of the orders passed by this Court are enclosed to the statement of objections.

It is thus clear that in so far as these writ petitioners whose names are mentioned above, they had approached this Court earlier making a grievance regarding the alteration of the names in the installations by deleting their names and entering the names of respondents 3 to 5 herein. This Court has not entertained the said grievance, but has directed them to approach the Ombudsman. It is not known whether these petitioners have so far approached the Ombudsman. In the light of the orders already passed, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the deletion of their names or disconnection of electricity supply which is a consequential order, it is open to them to approach the Ombudsman, in which event, the Ombudsman, I am sure, will consider the nature of grievance, violation of regulations and the absence of any opportunity of being heard given to them in accordance with law.

In so far as other petitioners are concerned, no such orders are, passed against them deleting their names from the installation. However, the impugned official memorandums produced at Annexure-K series make it clear that at the instance of respondents 3 to 5 who claim to be owners of the installations and the premises, electricity supply has been terminated permanently allegedly on the basis of the surrender made by the owners.

The fact that these petitioners claim to be the occupants and are enjoying the electricity to the premises in question is a matter which ought to have been taken note of by notifying the petitioners and by providing them an opportunity of being heard. Under what authority they are occupying the premises and whether behind their back and at the instance of respondents 3 to 5 such termination of electricity supply could be ordered, are matters which ought to have been decided by the 2nd respondent by providing an opportunity of being heard.

These'' petitioners, stand on a different footing as they had not approached any other forum earlier, nor there is any order passed by this Court similar to the one suffered by the four petitioners above named. Hence, it is apparent that there is violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioners have been deprived of electricity supply to the premises which are allegedly in their occupation, before taking any action at the instance of respondents 3 to 5.

The 2nd respondent was under an obligation to hear the petitioners by issuing due notice to them. There is no reference to any such notice in the impugned official memorandum. The 2nd respondent proceeds solely on the basis that respondents 3 to 5 decided to surrender the electricity therefore, surrender was to be accepted and supply terminated. Such an order cannot be passed to deprive the occupants of the premises without hearing them. Hence, the writ petitioners other than the four petitioners mentioned above are entitled to succeed.

In the result, W.P. Nos. 43753/2014, 44231/2014, 44232/2014, 44233/2014, 44240/2014 & 44241/2014 are dismissed.

W.P. Nos. 44234/2014, 44235/2014, 44236/2014, 44237/2014, 44238/2014, 44239/2014 & 44242/2014 are allowed. The impugned official memorandums at Annexures-K4, K5, K6, K7 & K8 are quashed. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 44234/2014, 44235/2014, 44236/2014, 44237/2014, 44238/2014, 44239/2014 & 44242/2014 and respondents 3 to 5 are directed to appear before the 2nd respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer (E), on 27.10.2014 at 3.00 p.m., without any further notice and file their objections to the proposed termination of electricity supply, whereupon the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously. Until then, electricity supply shall not be disconnected to the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 44234/2014, 44235/2014, 44236/2014, 44237/2014, 44238/2014, 44239/2014 & 44242/2014. If it has been already disconnected, the same shall be restored, immediately, without any charges being payable by the petitioners.