M.C.Raju Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE1T DAY OF APRIL201411TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 9571 of 2014 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- M.C.RAJU, AGED47YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, SUPERVISION CABLE NETWORK, VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, KSEB, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 508. R BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0104-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) NO.9571/14 A P P E N D I X PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.21.6.06 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ELECTRICITY BOARD. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE2D PETITIONER WITH KSEB DT.30.12.10. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE2D PETITIONER WITH KSEB DT.4.1.08. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.21.6.06 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE3D PETITIONER AND THE KSEB. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.23.6.11 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE3D PETITIONER AND THE KSEB. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.30.12.10 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE4H PETITIONER AND ELECTRICITY BOARD. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.04.01.08 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE4H PETITIONER AND THE KSEB. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.18.5.06 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE4H PETITIONER AND THE KSEB. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

OF THE ELECTRICITY BOARD DT.25.2.12. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE1T PETITIONER DATED2502.14. EXT.P10(a): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE2D PETITIONER DT.25.2.14. EXT.P10(b): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE2D PETITIONER DT.25.2.14. EXT.P10(c): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE3D PETITIONER DT.20.03.14. EXT.P10(d): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE3D PETITIONER DT.25.2.14. EXT.P10(e): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE4H PETITIONER DT.25.2.14. EXT.P10(f): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE4H PETITIONER DT.25.2.14. EXT.P10(g): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE4H PETITIONER DT.25.2.14. /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

----------------------------------------------------- W.P(c) No.9571 of 2014-V ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st April, 2014

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are Cable T.V Operators. They have been granted permission to fix their cables on electric posts put up by the respondents as per Exts.P2 to P8 agreements. The agreements were renewed for a period of 10 years and the period has not expired till date. While so, as per Ext.P9 dated 25.02.2012, the pole rent of the petitioners has been enhanced and fixed at Rs.311/- per pole per annum in urban areas and Rs.155.50 in rural areas. As per clause 5 in Ext.P9, the new rates are to be applicable only from the date of expiry of the agreement. In view of the above stipulation, it is contended by the petitioners that the new rates shall be applicable only from the date of expiry of the agreement. In view of the above stipulations, it is contended by the petitioners that the new rates shall be W.P(c) No.9571 of 2014-V2applicable to them only after the expiry of the term of the present agreement and that they are entitled to pay rent at the old rates during the term of the present agreements Exts.P2 to P8. However, in spite of the above, they have been served with Ext.P10 series demand notices directing them to pay the amounts mentioned therein. The petitioners apprehend that their cables would be dismantled if the said amount is not paid.

2. Advocate Jaice Jacob appears for the respondents. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P2 and other agreements contain a clause for resolution of all the disputes or differences that may arise among the parties thereof. Clause 9 in Ext.P2 is relied upon to point out that, any difference or dispute relating to or arising out of the said agreement shall be referred to the concerned Chief Engineer for decision. The petitioners have not approached the concerned Chief Engineer for the resolution of their disputes. Therefore, it is pointed out that it is for the concerned Chief Engineer to be moved by the petitioners W.P(c) No.9571 of 2014-V3for a resolution of their dispute. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Ranjith Thampan, who appears for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have no objection in approaching the concerned Chief Engineer. However, he only apprehends that the petitioners' cables may be dismantled.

3. In view of the above submissions, I am satisfied that this Writ Petition can be disposed of with the following directions: i) The petitioners shall approach the concerned Chief Engineer for resolution of the disputes that they have highlighted in this Writ Petition, invoking clause 9 of Ext.P2 and the similar clauses in the other agreements; 2) The petitioners shall approach the concerned Chief Engineer by submitting a proper representation, within a period of 10 days from today; 3) Upon such representations being made, the said Chief Engineer shall consider the same and shall pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving opportunity to the W.P(c) No.9571 of 2014-V4petitioners also to be heard. Orders shall be passed in the matter expeditiously; 4) Until final orders are passed in accordance with the above direction, the cables that are installed on the electric posts by the petitioners shall not be dismantled. Sd/- (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/