IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21087 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.C.SAIDALAVI, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, KUMMINIPARAMBU, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., MANJERI DIVISION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., KONDOTTY SUB DIVISION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. P.P THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C ) No. 21087 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th July , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P2 whereby a huge liability of Rs.31581/- has been required to be satisfied by the petitioner and because of non-satisfaction of liability the electric connection has been cut off. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for raising such an exorbitant bill is not discernible from Ext.P2. On enquiry, it has been revealed that a sum of Rs.4325/- has been demanded being the 'Additional charges' for the reason that the capacitor in the meter was not functioning and that the Board is entitled to recover 20% of the total energy charges, for non-functioning of the capacitor. According to the petitioner, it cannot be shifted to the shoulders of the petitioner , more so in view of the decision in Ahammed Koya vs. Kerala State Electricity Board (2003 (3) KLT SN 2)wherein interference was made in favour of the consumer. The learned Counsel further submits that there is absolutely no rationale for W.P.(C ) No. 21087 OF 2010 2 having demanded a sum of Rs.16768/- under the head 'Others' (miscellaneous) and that the petitioner is not liable to satisfy the same under any circumstances. Aggrieved of Ext.P2, the petitioner has approached the Assistant Executive Engineer by filing Ext. P3 representation which is still pending 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board submits that the liability to instal proper static 'capacitor' is upon the consumer in respect of the connections provided . Reliance is also placed on the relevant provisions of the Tariff Order whereby a stipulation has been incorporated to realise 20% of excess charges , if at all the defect is not brought to the notice of the Board with regard to non-functioning of the capacitor or if no proper static capacitor has been installed. The learned Standing Counsel also submits that the petitioner is bound to remit the excess charges for the reason that a static capacitor of the requisite requirement has not been installed in the premises. It was not for satisfying the statutorey requirements, that the electric connection was cut off. It is contended that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned bill by filing necessary proceedings before the Executive Engineer, subject to W.P.(C ) No. 21087 OF 2010 3 satisfaction of the liability and that Ext.P3 preferred before the Assistant Engineer has already been forwarded to the Executive Engineer for appropriate action. 4. This Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case in view of the relief proposed to be given. The first respondent is directed to consider Ext. P3 objection in response to Ext.P2 and pass final orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and electric connection shall be restored to the petitioner , if the demand in Ext. P2 is satisfied, which will be provisional and subject to the final orders to be passed in the above proceedings. No opinion is expressed by this Court with regard to the rival contentions and the petitioner will be at liberty to expose all such contentions before the concerned authority while finalising the proceedings. The Writ Petition is disposed of . P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk