High Court Kerala High Court

Sampo Frozen Foods vs The Executive Engineer on 30 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sampo Frozen Foods vs The Executive Engineer on 30 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29419 of 2010(B)


1. SAMPO FROZEN FOODS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASST ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION

3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER

4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.G.SUNIL

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :30/09/2010

 O R D E R
                        C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
           - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   W.P.(C)No. 29419 OF 2010
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

        Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010


                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a partnership firm doing business

of producing Ice. It is a consumer of Electricity of LT 4 Tariff.

For sometime there was no production at all in the petitioner’s

factory. However, the 1st respondent fixed a quota for

consumption of electricity for industrial units from April 2010

onwards. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fixation of quota

based on the bills from May, 2009 to February, 2010, the

period during which the unit of the petitioner was closed for

major repair work and the consequential fixation of the quota

as 3144 units for the petitioner. According to the petitioner

with these units he could run his factory only for just 6 days

in a month and for consumption in excess of 3144 units he

would be charged at the rate of Rs.7.25 per unit as against the

normal rate of Rs.3.25 per unit. In the said circumstances, for

re-fixation of quota the petitioner has submitted Exts.P13 and

P16 representations before the first respondent. Despite the

receipt of such applications for re-fixation of the quota, the

WPC.29419/2010
: 2 :

first respondent did not take any step in the matter.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned standing counsel. Indisputably, the first

respondent is bound to consider the request made by the

petitioner as per Exts.P13 and P16.

In the said circumstances, without making any

observation as to the merits of the contention raised in this

writ petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the first

respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P13 and P16

representations submitted by the petitioner for re-fixation of

the quota expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

jma
//true copy//
P.A to Judge