K.C.Ninan v. Kerala State of Elect'icity Board and others

Sri.K V.V.Setharam, Son of and age not known to the petitioner, Occ. Tahsildar Office Of The Tahsildar -Malkajgiri Mandat, District Medchal- Malkajgiri ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. CH SHASHI BHUSHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI \ANDA CONTEMPT CASE No.762 0F 20ili W.P.No.2648 of 2025 ORD ER: Heard Sri Ch.Shashi Bhushan, lear red counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner anrl the learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue rppearing on behalf of the respondent. 2, The contempt case is filed complaining I i )lation oF the orders of this Court dated 05.02.2025 passed in rA.p.No.2648 of

3. Perused the record. 4 The relevant oortion of the order date! 05.o2.2 025 oassed in W.P ,No .2648 ol 2O25 is extra cted hl reunder:

13. The Apex Court in the Judgment reJ r rted in 2OZ2 Livelaw 570 in between Dilip (dead) through LRs \ s. Satish and others passed in CRLA No.810 of 2O22 (arisinq r ut of Special Leave petition (CRL)No.8917 of 2019), datec 13.O5.2022 observed as u nder: "It is not dlsputed that applicant No.1 ha,; obtained the connection of electricity. The submissions ma j : show that sN,'' C.C-No-762 2O25 applicant No. 1 is in possession of the shop and he is running a saloon shop- It is clear that he needs electricity for doing this business, but the first informant was not giving no objection certificate. He took every step to see that applicant No. 1 does not get supply of electricity for his business. It is not the case of the Applicant No. 1 that as per the agreement between him and landlord, the landlord is bound to supply the electricity. Further, the Electricity Board seeks no objection of landlord only to verify that the possession of the tenant is authorized. There is no other purpose behind obtaining such no objection from landlord. The landlord cannot prevent the tenant from availing such facility at his own cost. It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examjne is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. Be that as it may, the High Court clearly fell in error in quashing the FIR. It cannot be said that fabrication and/or creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offence under the Indian penal Code. The High Court completely overlooked the definition of cheating in Section 415 of the IPC. It is however made clear that electricity supply granted, shall not be discontinued, subject to compliance by the Respondents of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity by the electricity department including payment of charges for the same."

14. Taking into consideration: a) The submissions made by the learned counsel sN,) :.C.No.762-2025 appearing on behalf of the petition.er 319 h" learned 3lJnaing-counsel appeiring on behalf of ther respondent Nos.l to 4 and, b) The view of the Apex Court in th e judgments and extracted above) and a(li in enlisted (referred to below, i) "K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Elect'icity Board and others" ii) "Chandu Khamaru Vs' Nayan Malik arr I others" iii)"Dilip (dead) through LRs Vs' Sat'sh e nd others" c) The fact as borne on record that petili rner applied for regularization of the subiect property ln payment basis as per G.o.Ms.No.S9 dated go'12'2o I' t by paying requisite amount and the same is pending < onsideration as on date bY the Government, d) The fact that even if state is the ovr ter' the due procedure as per law cannot be ignored' and due process oflawneedstobenecessarilyfollowed,Theivritpetition is allowed and the impugned proceedings n r 'ADE/OP/AS Rao Nagar/F.No.Land Dispute D'No'441" 4'25 dated 1o.O1.2025 is set aside and the rispondenl: are directed to follow due process of law' However' ther r shall be no order as to costs.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf ()1 the petitioner submits that the contempt case could be closer directing the respondent herein, who is 5th respondent in the \ /'P'No'2648 of 2025 to follow due procedure under law' I I .:" ;\ _ 2+ - -<..i<+*:.-,r.i+- I \ ) ) \ \ 4 sN,l C.C.No.762 2OZs --\*= The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behatf of 6 the respondent does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner.

7. Takinq tnto onsi erati on (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The submissions put-forth by the learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the sole respondent in the present Contempt Case is directed to follow due process under law. Accordingly, the contempt case is crosed. However, there shail be no order as to costs. i"liscellaneous applicat iqls, if 9l'y I pending sha ll stand closed. 1 To, Sd/- NAYANI C ANDRA SEKHA R RAO DEPUTY REGI STRAR I //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI CH SHASHI BHUSHAN Advocate tOpUCl 2. Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE , High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT] *>

3. Two CD Copies C;R/PSL L*.t*, { I HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ORDER CC.No.762 ot 2025 a (1' B J L 2[h /i a a ,.) !l ti' CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE l- A1'.\