High Court Kerala High Court

Indus Towers Limited Represented vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 20 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Indus Towers Limited Represented vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 20 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24735 of 2010(N)


1. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED REPRESENTED
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BHARATHI INFRATEL LTD., LIMITED
3. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., REPRESENTED BY

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL

4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SATHISAN

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

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :20/08/2010

 O R D E R
                  P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                    --------------------------------------------
                     WP(C) NO. 24735 OF 2010
                    --------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010

                                JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of satisfying all the

requirements as stipulated by the Board so as to have the additional

power allocation in respect of two different consumer Nos. 8689 and 5981

and despite preferring Exts.P8 and P8(a) applications for extending

necessary relief, the matter is still being kept in cold storage for nearly 12

months, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the

present Writ Petition for appropriate relief.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submits

that, with regard to the consumer No.5981 forming the subject matter of

Ext.P8(a), the petitioner has satisfied the requirements and installation of

the ‘transformer’ of requisite capacity and drawing of the lines require

some more time and there is absolutely no lapse or negligence in this

regard.

3. With regard to the consumer No.8689, the learned counsel

submits that the petitioner is still to satisfy the ‘OYEC’ charges for

installation of the transformer, which is necessary, so as to extend the

relief. The learned counsel further submits that the actual requirements to

be satisfied by this petitioner will be intimated in writing within two weeks

2
WP(C) No. 24735/2010

and on satisfaction of the requirements, the matter will be positively dealt

with without any delay.

4. After hearing both the sides, the Writ Petition is disposed of,

directing the respondents 3 and 4 to inform the particulars to be satisfied by

the petitioner, so as to have the relief sought for. This shall be done within

two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of

the communication as above, the petitioner to satisfy all the requirements

stipulated, on which event, the matter shall be considered and finalized for

extending the necessary relief within a further period of three months.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc