DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16^th day of August 2019 

Present  : Smt.Shiny.P.R,  President

               : Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member                 Date of Filing : 30/01/2018

CC/17/2018

Babu Thomas

S/o. A.T. Thomas Anjilivelil House,                            -        Complainant

Muttikulangara P.O, Mahali,

Palakkad.

(By Advs.M.P.Ravi & M.J.Vince)

            Vs

1. The Assistant Engineer

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Section,                      

Olavakode, Palakkad - 678 002                                 -        Opposite Parties

(By Adv.Remika.C)

2. The Village Officer

Puduppariyaram No.2 Village,

Puduppariyaram,

Palakkad - 678 731

                                                      O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member  

Brief facts of the complaint are mentioned below.

The complainant who is a resident of Mahali, Muttikulangara, is an agriculturist earning his livelihood from the returns of his agriculture, by doing agricultural activities and marketing the output.  The complainant availed an electrical connection from the 1^st opposite party and was using the same to irrigate crops in his land.  He used to irrigate the land which is included in survey number 143/1 in Pudupariyaram Panchayath, Pudupariyaram Village of Palakkad Taluk.  The complainant used to plant varieties of crops like banana, tapioca, areca nut, coconut, paddy etc… which he used to irrigate with bore well water and pond water.  He used the agricultural electrical connection number 74 to draw water from these sources to irrigate the land.  On 20/02/2017, the officials of the opposite party came and issued disconnection notice to the complainant and immediately the electrical connection to his motor shed was disconnected.  On questioning the authority of the opposite party to do the same, the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that they did the same with a specific direction received from the 2^nd opposite party and when complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party he stated that he did it on the basis of direction from the District Collector.  Complainant pleads that there was no order or direction for the same from the District Collector to disconnect the electrical connection of the complainant and no other electric connections in this village were disconnected by the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party deliberately and arbitrarily directed the 1^st opposite party to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant without enquiring into the matter, the District Collector did not make any direction to disconnect the electrical connection of the complainant.  After disconnection the complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court to reinstate his agricultural connection and it was allowed and his connection was reinstated.  Then afterwards complainant’s connection was again disconnected at the instance of the 2^nd opposite party without issuing any specific order in this regard.  When the 2^nd opposite party was contacted, he stated that there is a specific order but the same was not handed over to the complainant, as pleaded by the complainant.  According to the complainant even after repeated request his connection was not reinstated.  As it was summer season which is the peak time to irrigate the crops, the complainant approached the agricultural officer with a complaint and the agricultural officer filed a report asking the Village Officer to reinstate the complainant’s connection, but the latter did not take any steps for the same.  The Agricultural Officer suggested for a joint verification with the officials of both departments, but which was not accepted by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant also applied for joint verification which also was rejected by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant pleads that the opposite parties have misinterpreted the order passed by the District Collector and used the same malafidely and biasedly and these acts caused heavy damages to the complainant; he lost his crop because he was unable to irrigate his crops in time and save them from draught.  He contacted the agricultural officer who issued a letter to the 2^nd opposite party to reinstate his connection; the heavy loss was clear from the report of the Agricultural Officer.  When the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party and informed him about this, the 2^nd opposite party did not help him.  According to the complainant, the acts of the opposite parties are unlawful and amount to deficiency in service.  The tactics of 1^st opposite party of disconnecting the service without proper reason and without specific order, to deny service to the complainant or the acts of the 2^nd opposite party in giving a specific direction to the 1^st opposite party to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant amount to misuse of official status.  Complainant also pleads that being Government Servants the opposite parties are expected to be duty bound to serve the people without any arbitrary and biased behaviour harassing a common man by public servants is highly impermissible and they are bound to compensate for the loss sustained by the complainant due to the illegal and biased actions.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties. The complainant has caused to issue a lawyer notice dated.03/03/2017 to the opposite party for which the opposite party did not make any reply so far.  Hence the complainant prays to this Hon’ble Forum to pass an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and to pay the cost of this proceedings. 

The complaint was admitted and notices were sent to the opposite parties to enter their appearance and file their versions.  1^st opposite party only entered appearance and file his version.  The 2^nd opposite party did not enter appearance and file his version. Hence he was set ex-parte.  In the version filed by the 1^st opposite party, this opposite party denies the rest of the allegations and averments in the complaint except those expressly admitted.  This opposite party admits that the electric connection to consumer number 74 under electrical section Olavakode was disconnected on 20/02/2017.  This opposite party contends that the connection was being used for pumping water from pond for watering coconut trees, plantains etc., using a 5 HP electric motor pump set especially during night, on 30/01/2017 the District Collector (The Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority) issued an order regarding the shortage of water due to the worst draught during 2016-17.  The District Administration is concentrating only on supply of drinking water to al the district areas.  As per section 26 (2) of the Disaster Management Act 2005, the District Collector issued orders to KSEBL to disconnect the electricity supply being used for pumping water for agriculture except for paddy cultivation and to disconnect the connections for coconut plantation which is used for toddy production.  This opposite party also contends that the 2^nd opposite party addressed this opposite party to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant on the basis of instruction from District Collector, Palakkad.  According to this opposite party, the Village Officer informed this opposite party that the complainant is pumping water from a pond in resurvey number 192/3 using 5 HP Motor for irrigating plantain and coconut trees etc. during night hours and due to excessive pumping, the Village Officer noticed that the water level in the wells near the pond is reduced considerably; the Village Officer also instructed this opposite party to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant temporarily as directed by the District Collector.  As per Regulation 138 (e) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014, the licensee shall disconnect the electricity supply to any consumer, if the competent authority directs to do so.  The Palakkad District Collector convened an emergency meeting on 07/02/2017 to review draught situation in Palakkad in which the District Collector informed that even though it was decided in the order dated.30/01/2017 to provide water for paddy cultivation, the Minister for Water Resources on 06/02/2017 issued direction not to supply water for any agricultural purposes and water is to be pumped only for drinking purpose.  As per this direction the District Collector issued directions to the KSEBL to disconnect electricity connection being used for all agricultural purpose.  As per the Regulation mentioned above the District Collector can order disconnection of electricity.  Hence on receipt of the order dated.30/01/2017 and the letter from the Village Officer dated.20/02/2017 the 1^st opposite party issued a notice to the complainant on 20/02/2017 stating that the electricity to the premises was being disconnected as per the direction of the District Collector and the matter of disconnection was reported to the 2^nd opposite party as per letter dated.21/02/2017.  This opposite party also contends that the statement of the complainant that the District Collector has not issued any order for disconnection and the same was effected at the instance of the letter from the Village Officer is false.  The Village Officer issued instructions for disconnection as per the orders of the District Collector.  The District Collector is more superior in hierarchy than the Agricultural Officer and the District Collector is a statutory authority as per the Regulation 138 of Supply Code 2014.  The Agricultural Officer is not competent to issue a reconnection order to KSEBL.  When the electric connection is disconnected as per the orders of the District Collector, aggrieved by the disconnection the complainant approached the High Court of Kerala by filing WP (C) No.7648/2017.  In the order dated.08/03/2017 the High Court directed the opposite party to grand reconnection for a period of only one week and the use shall be confined to the paddy field irrigation.  As directed by the High Court, the electric connection was restored on 10/03/2017 and the matter of reconnection was informed to the 2^nd opposite party as per letter dated.13/03/2017.  The High Court has directed to reconnect only for one week and the Village Officer was again addressed for the course of action to be followed as per letter dated.18/03/2017 and the Village Officer instructed as per letter dated.20/03/2017 to comply with the High Court orders.  As per the orders of the Kerala High Court, complainant’s electric connection was disconnected again on 20/03/2017 and the disconnection matter was informed to the Village Officer vide letter dated.23/03/2017.  This opposite party denies complainant’s averments that the High Court allowed his application for reconnection and this opposite party disconnected complainant’s services at the instance of the 2^nd opposite party and contends that the High Court directed this opposite party to reconnect the electric connection only for one week and the disconnection after one week is as per High Court’s direction.  It is the duty of this opposite p`arty to obey the order of the High Court and there is no pressure from any side to disconnect the services.  The connection was restored on 10/03/2017 and disconnected again on 18/03/2017 at the instance of the High Court.  Complainant’s allegations that the electric connections of no one other than the concerned agricultural consumer were disconnected for this reason is false; consumer numbers 12773 of Sethumadhavan, 15889 of Krishnankutty, 4369 of Appukuttan, 4397 of V.P.Prabhakaran under the electrical section Olavakode were also disconnected among many other consumers under electrical circle Palakkad as per the orders of the District Collector.  This opposite party also contends that the Palakkad District Collector relaxed the conditions after the onset of monsoon and complainant’s electric connection was reconnected in June 2017.  Hence it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost to these opposite parties.  Complainant filed chief affidavit.  The 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit.  Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked from the side of the complainant.  1^st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked from the side of the 1^st opposite party except Exts.B3, B7 and B8 which were marked with objection.  Agricultural Officer was examined as PW2 and Exts.X1 and X2 were marked.  Complainant and 1^st opposite party were heard.

The following issues are considered in this case by this Forum.

1. Whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
2. If so, the relief and cost available to the complainant?

Issues 1 and 2 in detail

          Complainant has filed Exts.A1 to A4 in support of his pleas.  Ext.A1 is a copy of a letter dated.04/03/2017 with postal receipt and acknowledgement card.  This letter is sent by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party requesting the latter to reconnect the borewell connection after a joint inspection.  Ext.A2 is a letter dated.21/03/2017 sent by the complainant to the Vivaravakasha Officer, The Village Officer, Puduppariyaram Village 2^nd under the RTI Act 2005 requesting him for the details of electricity connections disconnected in Pudupariyaram Village as per order of District Collector dated.30/01/2017.  Ext.A3 is a letter dated.10/04/2017 sent by Village Officer (Public Information Officer) Pudupariyaram 2^nd Village to inform the complainant that from 30/01/2017 to 28/02/2017 as per the general public’s complaint District Collector has given instructions to disconnect complainant’s electric connection and if there is any complaint regarding this reply, the complainant can give appeal within 30 days to the Appellate Authority, namely, Additional Tahazildar, Taluk Office, Palakkad.  Ext.A4 is the order dated.08/03/2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala which states that “there shall be a reconnection granted, but shall be only for one week and the usage shall be confined to the irrigation of paddy fields and if at all any other use is detected, then the Board or the Revenue Authorities would be entitled to disconnect the connection”.  This opposite party has filed Exts.B1 to B10 documents to support his contentions except Exts.B3, B7 and B8 which are marked with objection.  Ext.B1 is the proceedings of the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority and the District Magistrate Palakkad.  In point number 3 of this proceedings, it is stated that pumping of water for agriculture except for paddy cultivation is strictly prohibited and the electric connection of those violating this should be disconnected by KSEBL.  The Agricultural Department should stop the subsidies for this type of electric connections.  The KSEBL should also disconnect the connection for coconut plantations which is used for toddy production.  Ext.B2 is a letter dated.20/02/2017 sent by Village Officer, Pudupariyaram 2^nd Village to the 1^st opposite party which informs the latter of misuse of water by the complainant by pumping of water from a pond by using motor.  Ext.B3 is the minutes of an urgent meeting dated.07/02/2017 held at District Collectors Chamber presided over by the District Collector, Palakkad.  This Ext. is marked with objection.  Ext.B4 is the notice dated.20/02/2017 issued by Assistant Engineer, KSEBL Electrical Section, Olavakode to inform the complainant of disconnection of his agricultural connection.  This notice also shows the receipt of the notice dasted.20/02/2017 by the complainant on 21/02/2017 which is signed by the complainant on the letter marked as Ext.B4 putting date as 21/02/2017 below his signature.  Ext.B5 is the letter dated.21/02/2017 sent by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party which informs the latter that the electric connection sanctioned to the complainant is disconnected.  Ext.B6 is a true copy of the order of the Kerala High Court dated.08/03/2017 passed by Hon’ble High Court Judge and issued by Assistant Registrar which states that “there shall be a reconnection granted, but shall be only for one week and the usage shall be confined to the irrigation of paddy fields and if at all any other use is detected, then the Board or the Revenue Authorities would be entitled to disconnect the connection”. Exts.B7 & B8 are marked with objection.  Ext.B9 is a letter dated.20/03/2017 sent by Village Officer Pudupariyaram 2^nd Village to the 1^st opposite party which encloses a copy of the order of the High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No.7648/2017 (e) filed by the complainant before the Kerala High Court for compliance.  Ext.B10 is a letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party informing the latter of complainant’s electrical connection (Consumer number 74) disconnection on 20/03/2017.  This letter also shows acknowledgment by the Village Officer (2^nd opposite party) of the receipt of this letter on 23/03/2017.  Complainant has also produced Exts.X1 & X2 to prove his pleas.  Ext.X1 is a letter given by the complainant to the Agricultural Officer, Pudupariyaram Krishi Bhavan which requests the latter to recommend for reinstating electric connection of the complainant to draw and use water from his borewell.  Ext.X2 is the letter sent by Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Pudupaiyaram, Palakkad to the 1^st opposite party which informs the latter that the complainant has done 2 acre paddy cultivation in his 5 acre land and his electric connection was disconnected on 20/02/2017 by KSEBL Authorities.  If his electric connection is not reinstated his paddy cultivation will get dried up and damaged.  Hence to irrigate his paddy cultivation, the disconnected borewell connection may be reinstated. 

          In this connection complainants deposition before this Forum as PW 1 should also be noted.”CeIv{Snknän IW£³ hntOZn¨Xv s^{_phcn 2017 \mWv.  Fs¶ C³t^mw sNbvXXv UnkvIWIvSv sNbvXXn\p tijamWv.  Rm³ Hcp A{KnIĨd IW£³ BWv FSp¯Xv.  hmg, sX§v, s\ÂIrjn F¶n§s\bpÅ IrjnbmWv Rm³ sN¿p¶Xv.  1st opposite party District Collector sâbpw _Ôs¸« A[nImcnIfpsSbpw D¯chv ]men¡pI am{XamWv sNbvXn«pÅXv F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ.  A§ns\ Hcp HmÀUÀ DÅXmbn F\n¡dnbnÃ.  c­maXv UnkvIWIvSv sN¿m³ h¶ kab¯v Rm³ Øe¯p­mbncp¶p.  t\m«okv X¶ncp¶nÃ.  IpSnshÅw kwc£n¡p¶Xn\v Unkv{SnIvSv IfIvSdnsâ t\XrXz¯nepÅ UnkmÌÀ amt\Pvsaâv I½nän bpsS D]tZi{]ImcamWv IW£³ hntOZn¨Xv F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ.  Fsâ IW£³ AÃmsX Fsâ hntÃPn thsd BcpsSbpw IW£³ I«v sNbvXn«nÃ.  CXÃmsX thsdbpw A{Kn¡Ä¨d IW£³ CtX hntÃPn D­v.""

Opposite party’s deposition as DW 1 before this Forum is also to be noted.  Ext.B1 BZys¯ t¢mkv  ]dbp¶ shÅw tamWnäÀ sN¿m³ \ntbmKn¨n«pÅ Un¸mÀ«vsaâvIsf Ipdn¨v F\n¡dnbmw. AKn¡Ä¨d Un¸mÀ«vsaâv, dh\yq Un¸mÀ«vsaâv, sI.Fkv.C._n.F F¶nhbmWv, Cu Un¸mÀ«vsaâvItfmSv tamWnäÀ sN¿m\mWv Bhiys¸«n«pÅXv F¶mWv Fsâ Adnhv.  Rm³ Heht¡mSv sk£\nse AknÌâv F©n\nbÀ BWv.  Cu sk£sâ Iogn BWv lÀPn¡mcsâ IW£³ hcp¶Xv.  hntÃPv Hm^okdpsS \nÀt±i {]ImcamWv taÂ]dª IWI£³ UnkvIWIvSv sNbvXXv.  Ext.A3  tcJ{]Imcw lÀPn¡mcsâ IW£³ hntOZn¡phm³ hntÃPv B^okÀ \nÀt±iw \ÂInbn«p­v.  Ext.A3 lÀPn¡mcsâ IW£³ am{Xw UnkvIWIvSv sN¿m\pÅ \nÀt±iamWv F¶v a\ÊnemIpw.  A{Kn¡Ä¨d IW£³ UnkvIWIvSv sN¿Wsa¶v {Ku­v hm«À Un¸mÀ«vsatâm, CdntKj³ Un¸mÀ«vsatâm Bhiys¸«n«nÃ.  Fsâ sk£\nse ]mUn ^oÂUv AÃm¯ FÃm A{Kn¡Ä¨À IW£³kpw UnkvIWIvSv sNbvXpthm F¶v ]dbm³ ]änÃ.  R§fpsS kÀ¡nfnsâ Iogn F{X A{Kn¡Ä¨À IW£³kv D­v F¶v AdnbnÃ.  Cu IW£³ IqSmsX thsd IW£³kv UnkvIWIvSv sN¿m³ th­n tcJmaqew Adnhv X¶Xmbn AdnbnÃ.  ]©mb¯n \nt¶m, t]meokv AtXmdnänbn \nt¶m Cu IW£³ hntOZn¡Wsa¶v ImWn¨v t\m«okv e`n¨n«nÃ.  FIvknIyq«ohv F©n\nbÀ {]tXyIw \nÀt±iw X¶n«nÃ.  HmÀUÀ hmbn¨v t\m¡n th­Xv sN¿m³ \nÀt±iw X¶n«p­v.  AXv {]Imcw FÃm IW£³kpw I«v sNbvXpthm F¶v F\n¡v AdnbnÃ.  Ext.B1 clause 3 {]Imcw R§Ä FÃm IW£³kpw I«v sNbvtXm F¶v F\n¡v ]dbm³ ]änÃ.  km³Uv ^n«dnMv ¹mâpIfpsS IW£³ I«v sNbvtXm F¶v AdnbnÃ. Heht¡mSv taJebn shÅw ^n«À sN¿p¶Xpw, shÅw tdmsaäocnbembn D]tbmKn¡p¶ Øm]\§fpw D­v.  AhÀ¡v UnkvIW£³ t\m«okv \ÂInsbt¶m, IW£³ I«v sNbvXpthm F¶pw F\n¡v AdnbnÃ.  AhcpsS IW£³ I«v sN¿m³ hntÃPn \n¶pw \nÀt±iw e`n¨n«nÃ.  Ext.B1  lÀPn¡mcsâ IW£³ I«v sN¿Ww F¶ HmÀUÀ CÃ. 

Deposition by PW2 before this Forum should also be noted.” Ext.X2  {]Imcw ]cntim[\ \S¯nbXmbn ImWp¶nà F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ.  FÃm Irjn Hm^okÀamcpw ]cntim[n¨Xn\ptijw am{Xsa dnt¸mÀ«v sImSp¡mdpÅq.  IpSnshůn\v {]m[m\yw sImSp¯psIm­v Irjn Bhiy¯n\pÅ shÅw AS¡w Zpcp]tbmKw sN¿p¶Xv XSbWw F¶v Bhiys¸«vsIm­v IfIvSdnsâ \nÀt±iw D­mbncp¶p F¶v ]dªm F\n¡v AdnbnÃ, dn¡mÀUv t\m¡nbm am{Xsa ]dbm³ ]äpIbpÅq.  \\¨psIm­ncn¡p¶ t{Im¸n ]n¶oSv shÅansæn \in¨pt]mIpw. 

 We have perused the affidavits and documentary evidences submitted before this Forum by both the parties and depositions given as PW1, PW2 and DW1 before this Forum and understood that the electric connection to the complainant’s motor shed was disconnected.  But as per Ext.B4 the disconnection notice dated.20/02/2017 was received by the complainant only on 21/02/2017 which shows that only after disconnection, disconnection notice was seen received by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party which proves that a grave deficiency in service is committed by the opposite party.  Further as per complainant’s deposition as PW1 it is clear that he is cultivating paddy also and also as per Ext.X2 (letter sent by Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Pudupariyaram, Palakkad to the 1^st opposite party).  1^st opposite party is also informed by the Agricultural Officer that the complainant has been doing 2 acre paddy cultivation in his 5 acre agricultural land.  Also as per Ext.B1 point number 3 it is stated that “pumping of water for agriculture except paddy cultivation is strictly prohibited and the electric connections of those violating this should be disconnected by KSEBL”.  But in this case it is clear that complainant’s electric connection was seen disconnected by the opposite parties without considering the Ext.X2 letter and Ext.B1 point number 3; also it is clear from PW1 and PW2 depositions that the complainant is doing paddy cultivating also for which cultivation pumping of water for agriculture is not prohibited as per Ext.B1 order.  It is also observed that the opposite parties have disconnected the electric connection of the complainant arbitrarily without hearing hm.  This also shows opposite parties deficiency in service.  We also observe that immediately after receiving a letter from the 2^nd opposite party without making any enquiry, complainant’s electricity connection was seen disconnected by the opposite parties which also shows a serious deficiency of service committed by the 1^st opposite party. We also observe that the 2^nd opposite party is not seen to have given details of disconnected electricity connections for agricultural purpose in Pudupariyaram Village as per District Collector’s order dated.30/01/2017 as answer to the question asked by the complainant as per Right To Information Act 2005 vide his letter dated.21/03/2017 which also demonstrates that disconnection of the complainant’s electricity connection for agricultural purpose is biased and partial and unjust and unfair.  Above all the opposite parties have not produced a copy of the order or direction given by the District Collector to disconnect the electrical connection of the complainant before this Forum; the opposite parties have not been seen to have produced a copy of directions given by Minister for Water Resources on 06/02/2017 not to supply water for any of the agricultural purposes and that water is to be pumped only for drinking purpose.  Thus we observe that because of disconnection of  electricity connection of the complainant he has incurred a very heavy financial loss and consequently suffered much mental agony due to drying up of his cultivation including paddy cultivation. 

Considering all the above points we view that the opposite parties are seen to have acted unfairly and partially in disconnecting complainant’s electrical connection for agricultural purpose without making any enquiry and without conducting joint verification by Agricultural Department, Revenue Department and KSEBL.  Also disconnection of his electrical connection during the acute summer of 2017 has caused to the complainant huge financial loss and much mental agony.  Hence we decide to allow the complaint. 

We order the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards financial loss, mental agony and cost of this proceedings incurred and suffered by the complainant due to damage to his agricultural crops including paddy, due to lack of irrigation because of disconnection of his electricity connection by the opposite parties during acute summer of 2017, when irrigation of agricultural crops including paddy is quite inevitable. 

The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which the complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest p.a from the opposite parties on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.        

Pronounced in the open court on this the 16^th day of August 2019. 

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                              Shiny.P.R                                                                                

                                 President

                                    Sd/-

                 V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                                Member

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

Ext.A1 - copy of a letter dated.04/03/2017 with postal receipt and acknowledgement

             card

Ext.A2 -  letter dated.21/03/2017 sent by the complainant to the Vivaravakasha Officer,

             The Village Officer, Puduppariyaram Village 2^nd under the RTI Act 2005

Ext.A3 -  letter dated.10/04/2017 sent by Village Officer (Public Information Officer)

             Pudupariyaram 2^nd Village to the complainant

Ext.A4 - Order dated.08/03/2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala

Ext.X1 - letter given by the complainant to the Agricultural Officer, Pudupariyaram Krishi

             Bhavan

Ext.X2 - letter sent by Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Pudupariyaram, Palakkad to

            the 1^st opposite party

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1 -  proceedings of the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority and the

             District Magistrate Palakkad

Ext.B2 -  letter dated.20/02/2017 sent by Village Officer, Pudupariyaram 2^nd Village to

    the 1^st opposite party

Ext.B3 -  minutes of an urgent meeting dated.07/02/2017 held at Collectors Chamber

             (marked with objection)

Ext.B4 - notice dated.20/02/2017 issued by Assistant Engineer, KSEBL Electrical Section,

   Olavakode to the complainant

Ext.B5 -  letter dated.21/02/2017 sent by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party

Ext.B6 -  true copy of the order of the Kerala High Court dated.08/03/2017 passed by Kerala

             High court Judge and issued by Assistant Registrar

Ext.B7 -  copy of reconnection intimation to the Village Officer by Assistant Engineer,

             KSEBL Electrical Section, Olavakode (Marked with objection)

Ext.B8 -  copy of reconnection intimation to the Village Officer by Assistant Engineer,

            KSEBL Electrical Section, Olavakode (Marked with objection)

Ext.B9 -   letter dated.20/03/2017 sent by Village Officer Pudupariyaram 2^nd Village to

              the 1^st opposite party

Ext.B10-  letter sent by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1    -  Babu Thomas

PW2    -  Deepthi

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1   -  Shahabudheen

Cost

                 Nil