IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15651 of 2010(F)
1. SHAMSUDEEN.O.P., S/O.SAIDUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
3. SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :22/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 15651 of 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 22nd day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The case of the petitioner is that, the electric connection
provided to the premises of the petitioner has been cut off, pursuant to
Ext.P8 site mahazar prepared by the second respondent,
simultaneously raising Ext.P12 bill dated 7.5.2010 directing the
petitioner to satisfy quite exorbitant amount, which is stated as not
correct or sustainable. The petitioner has approached this Court
seeking for a direction to be issued to the respondent to restore the
power supply to the colour lab and studio run by the petitioner in the
name and style of ‘City Colour Lab’. The learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits, with reference to the documents produced as
Exts.P15 and P16 along with I.A. 7852 of 2010, that, being aggrieved of
the course and proceedings taken by the respondents, the petitioner
has preferred Exts. P16 appeal against Ext. P15 final order passed by
the second respondent. The prayer now pressed before this Court is
to give necessary direction to the Additional 4th respondent to consider
Ext.P16 and finalize the same.
2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
additional 4th respondent, with reference to the counter affidavit filed
W.P. (C) No. 15651 of 2010
: 2 :
before this Court, submits that the petitioner has been provided with two
separate connections, one to the ‘colour lab’ which is an ‘industrial
connection’ under LT IV tariff category, whereas the ‘studio’ has been
proved with ‘commercial connection’ under LT VII A tariff. The
petitioner was stated as diverting the power provided to the colour lab
under industrial category, to the studio, which is having the connection
under VII A category. The fraud and malpractice followed by the
petitioner could be brought to light only in the inspection leading to
Ext.P8 prepared by the second respondent. It was accordingly, that
the provisional bill was raised as borne by Ext. P12, which in turn has
been finalized as per Ext.P15.
3. The learned standing counsel further submits that, this being
an instance of theft of electric energy, by virtue of the mandate under
the relevant provisions of law , the petitioner will have to satisfy the
entire liability so as to have the power supply restored and to have the
statutory appeal entertained on merits.
4. In the said circumstances, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the
liability fixed upon him vide Ext.P15, on which event the power supply
shall stand restored forthwith, at any rate, within 48 hours. On
satisfying the liability as above, Ext.P16 shall be considered by the
additional 4th respondent and final orders shall be passed in accordance
W.P. (C) No. 15651 of 2010
: 3 :
with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month
from the date of receipt of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce
a copy of the judgment along with copy of the Writ Petition and all other
I.As before the additional 4th respondent for taking further steps.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd