IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30841 of 2010(E)
1. R.VIKRAMAN,PROPRIETOR,BELL FOODS(MARINE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :22/11/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P(C)No.30841 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated 22nd November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Low Tension consumer. However, the
question whether the petitioner is a Low Tension consumer under LT IV
tariff or LT VIIA tariff is the subject matter of W.P.(C)No.36750 of 2009
which is now pending before this Court. This writ petition has been filed
mainly challenging Ext.P7 and also for a direction to issue a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents to replace the meter and also to
give electric connection to consumer No.12511. Ext.P7 would reveal that
an amount of Rs.24,24,161/- is demanded from the petitioner. The said
demand was made under four heads. An amount of Rs.5,74,797/- has
been demanded as the regular dues. Even going by Ext.P7, the amount
demanded under item Nos.3 and 4 therein are under dispute and in fact,
in the appeals mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3. With respect to the amount
covered as per item No.2 therein the learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner submitted that the liability of the petitioner to remit the said
amount would arise only in case the contention of the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.36750 of 2009 is rejected by this Court. In other words, the
liability of the petitioner to pay the amount under item No.2 would depend
WP(C).No.30841/2010 2
upon the outcome of W.P.(C)No.36750 of 2009. As already noticed,
the amount covered as per item Nos.3 and 4 are under dispute. In
short, according to the petitioner, at present, the petitioner is liable to
pay only the amount covered as per item No.1 in Ext.P7.
2. I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the
respondents.
3. The learned standing counsel submits that apart from
the amount covered as per the regular dues under item No.1 in Ext.P7
the petitioner is liable to pay the up to date surcharge and also penal
interest together with reconnection charges. The petitioner is also
liable to comply with other statutory formalities for getting
reconnection of the electrical connection, it is further submitted. In
view of the above rival contentions, I am inclined to dispose of this writ
petition as hereunder:-
In case the petitioner pays the regular dues of
Rs.5,74,797/- shown in Ext.P7 together with the up to date surcharge,
penal interest and the amount required to be deposited for
reconnection of the electrical connection and complies with the other
formalities required for getting reconnection, the respondents shall
reconnect electrical connection to the industrial unit belonging to the
WP(C).No.30841/2010 3
petitioner with Consumer No.12511 within a period of two days from
the date of such remittance and compliance. It is made clear that the
liability of the petitioner to pay the amount mentioned under item
Nos.2, 3 and 4 will be subject to the outcome of W.P.(C)No.36750 of
2009 and the appeals mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge
TKS