IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2692 of 2007()
1. E.D.FRANCIS, S/O.DEVASSY, AGED 72,
... Petitioner
2. T.M.GANESHAN, S/O.KANDANKUTTY, AGED 38,
3. PAVOOR BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.GOPALAN,
4. A.VASU, S/O.APPU, AGED 77, AINOOR,
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :21/11/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.2692 of 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 21st day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
Challenging the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.18172 of 2007 dated 21st August, 2007,
the petitioners are before us in this appeal.
(2). In the writ petition, the petitioners had called in question the
additional security demanded by the respondents under Sec.47 (2) & (3) of the
Electricity Act, 2003.
(3). The learned Judge, while rejecting the writ petition has
merely followed the dicta laid down by this Court in the case of Asokan Vs.
K.S.E.B (2000 (1) KLT 432).
(4). The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asokan Vs.
K.S.E.B (2000 (1) KLT 432) has observed as under.
“In terms of Clause 14(a) of the Conditions of Supply
which are statutory in nature, the deposit by the consumer
shall be 3 times the probable monthly current charges.
The initial deposit is demanded and collected before
effecting connection on the basis of the anticipated
consumption. However, in course of time, due to increase
in consumption, revision in tariff, etc. the amount
deposited may be found insufficient to cover 3 months
W.A.No.2692 of 2007 -2-
probable current charges. Under such circumstances,
Clause 14 (d) of the Conditions of Supply permit demand
of enhanced cash deposit from time to time. This
demand, in our opinion, is strictly in accordance with the
conditions of supply statutorily framed under S.79 (j) of
the Electricity (Supply) Act and also as per the Service
Connection Agreement executed between the parties.”
(5). We do not doubt the correctness or otherwise of the decision
rendered by this Court in Asokan Vs. K.S.E.B (2000 (1) KLT 432). Therefore,
in our opinion, the learned Judge was justified in following the decision rendered
by the Division Bench of this Court, while rejecting the writ petition. This is what
is expected of the learned Judge in order to maintain the judicial discipline and
decorum of this institution. That has been done in the instant case. Therefore,
the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE
MS