SEENA B KUMAR Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
LAWS(KER)-2003-8-58
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on August 11,2003

SEENA B.KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) When the Kerala Financial Corporation exercising their power under S.29 auctioned an industrial premises named M/s. Arjun Associates, the appellant / writ petitioner was the successful bidder. The bid was confirmed in her favour and the property was conveyed to her. Later she applied for electric connection in that premises. The K.S.E. Board there upon demanded the arrears of electricity charges payable by the former consumer. It was because of the arrears the electricity supply had been disconnected from the premises earlier. This demand in Ext. P4 was challenged in O.P. 10658/98. The challenge failed. Therefore this Writ Appeal.
(2.) It is contended by the appellant that the electric supply is given not to the premises but for the use of the owner of the premises. The appellant is the present owner of the premises. She had obtained it in an auction conducted by the Kerala Financial Corporation. Therefore she is in no way liable for the dues payable by the former owner or consumer as the case may be. She is in need of power supply. She applied for it. She shall be given power supply without insisting for payment of dues of the former owner or consumer.
(3.) On the other hand, attempting to sustain the judgment impugned, it is contended by the standing counsel that the question raised by the appellant is no longer res integra in the light of the two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramachandran v. KSEB ( 2000 (2) KLT 694 ) and in K.J. Dennia and Others v. Official Liquidator and Others (AIR 2001 Kerala 380). Therefore there arises no question of any interference. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that when there is an earlier Divisional Bench on the point to the contra, the subsequent Division Bench ought not have taken a different view without referring the matter to a larger Bench. Therefore the issue deserves consideration by a larger bench as there is conflict of views by two Division Benches.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.