IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 925 of 2009()
1. M/S. HAM SAVENI CARBIDES
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.E.B AND OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJU JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :08/04/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.A. NO. 925 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.4.2009 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 6134/2009 pending further consideration
of the matter. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition is filed
seeking to quash Exts.P14 and P16 and for issuing a writ of mandamus
declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get re-connection in the light of
Ext.P3 and on the basis of the recommendation of the respondents 4 to 6
without paying any amount towards cost of works in the distribution side
and for other consequential reliefs. The learned Single Judge, by the
impugned order, directed the petitioner /appellant to pay an amount of
Rs.36,00,493/- and to execute agreements as conditions to give
reconnection, of course with a further condition that he will commence
payment of the installments within a period of one month from the date of
payment of the above said amount of Rs. 36,00,493/-. This is a provisional
W.A.925/2009 :2:
arrangement and subject to the result of the writ petition, without prejudice
to the contention of the other side. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner is
preferred this appeal.
2. We, in the normal course, would not have been entertained a writ
appeal against an interim order. But having due regard to the fact that the
main prayer sought for in the writ petition is for a direction to give
connection without insisting for any further payment from him and by way
of an interim order petitioner has been directed to remit a sizable amount
pending further consideration and thus, virtually dealt with one of the main
reliefs in the writ petition. Hence we heard the matter on merits.
Admittedly, petitioner’s connection was dismantled he having defaulted
payment of electricity dues. He want to restart his industry. For this, he
made a representation. Discussions were held at the highest level and
Ext.P8 shows that certain decisions were taken in the meeting held between
the parties. Three points were raised for decision by the Special Officer in
Ext.P10 issued pursuant to Ext.P8. By Ext.P11 the decision of the Board
has been communicated by the Special Officer (Revenue). Ext.P11 is dated
3.2.2009. It clearly shows that the petitioner had paid the principal amount.
By the said communication, he was asked to remit the duty arrears
W.A.925/2009 :3:
amounting to Rs.2,34,522/- Further, he was directed to file an
undertaking regarding withdrawal of all the cases and also to pay the
interest as per One Time Settlement. Subsequently, as per Ext.P13 letter the
Special Officer (Revenue), informed the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical
Circle, Palakkad, that the appellant has remitted the entire principal arrear
amount as suggested by the Chairman of the Kerala State Electricity Board
in the meeting in order to effect reconnection as a revival measure and
since the appellant has complied with the direction of the Chairman of the
Board, the Deputy Chief Engineer was requested to do the needful for
effecting reconnection as per rules so as to resume production by 15th
February, 2009. It also mentioned that an amount of Rs.4,25,816/- is lying
at the credit of the consumer towards security deposit. However
reconnection was given in stead Ext.P14 letter dated 21.2.2009 was issued
advising the petitioner to remit a further amount of Rs.13,50,493/- towards
the cost of works in the Distribution side for effecting supply to the
appellant firm. Later, a statement is filed requiring the petitioner to pay a
total amount of Rs.36 lakhs which includes the collateral contribution to be
made as mentioned in Ext.P14 of an amount of Rs. 13,50,493/- as also an
amount of Rs. 20 lakhs being the security deposit to be made for giving new
W.A.925/2009 :4:
connection.
4. Whether or not the petitioner is liable ultimately to pay this
amount of Rs. 36 lakhs need not be considered at this stage since we are
only considering as to whether as a condition for reconnection any further
amount is required to be deposited by the petitioner as a provisional
arrangement and if so, how much amount he has to remit. In this regard, we
have already pointed out that no mention is made in Exts.P11 and P13 about
the further amount of contribution he has to make, as contained in Ext.P14
order – the security deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Be that it may, if the appellant
is statutorily liable to pay such amount, we cannot say that he is not liable to
pay this amount at all. However, these matters are yet to be considered by
this Court. Admittedly, some amount is lying with the respondent Board as
balance towards security deposit. Therefore, the deficit to make the amount
of Rs. 20 lakhs will roughly come to Rs. 16 lakhs. Though the appellant
disputes his liability to pay this amount until a final decision is taken , we
cannot accept the said contention at this stage. Therefore, there will be a
direction that in case the petitioner deposits a further amount of Rs. 16 lakhs
(Sixteen lakhs) within two weeks, the respondent shall restore supply by
reconnection within a period of two weeks thereafter. The amount as
W.A.925/2009 :5:
directed above will be provisional and subject to the contentions that are
available to be raised by either side. This is only in partial modification of
the order made by the learned Single Judge and the appellant is also liable
to make instalments / payments as directed in the order with which we are
not interfering.
The writ appeal is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE.
P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
KNC/-