There already exists a service line from the post erected in the property of the fifth respondent to the ground floor of the building of the petitioner. The petitioner wants another service line to be drawn along the same route to the first floor of the same building. The motion made by the fourth respondent in this regard has been turned down by the second respondent by Ext. P12 order which is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner relies on the following observation in Bharghavan Pillai K.P. v. KSEB, Tvm and Others [2014(1) KLT 48].
"It is not disputed that there existed a service wire drawn from the very same post standing in the corner of the property of the 5th respondent, since the year 1995 onwards. If that be so, drawing of one more service wire to the same building for providing connection to the 1st floor portion cannot be objected as causing any prejudice or inconvenience to the 5th respondent."
W.P.(C). NO. 18379 OF 2015 2
2. The fifth respondent opposes the reliefs sought in the writ petition raising the following contentions:-
i) It was inequitable on the part of the second respondent to have passed Ext. P12 order when Ext. P6 petition for shifting of the existing service line is pending.
ii) Providing multiple connections to the different floors of the same residential building owned by the same person without separate door numbers is prohibited.
3. I do feel that all the aspects of matter have not been considered by the second respondent and therefore Ext. P12 order passed by him is quashed. The second respondent shall advert to the contentions reflected above and pass orders anew with notice to the parties. The needful shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The third respondent has ofcourse to provide electricity connection to the first floor of the building owned by the petitioner as per law.
The writ petition is disposed of.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS