IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1275 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.P.ANTONY, S/O.PAILY, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.MANICKATHAN MODERN RICE MILL, KURICHILAKODE, KODANADU.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR,(MANICKATHAN HOUSE, THOTTUVA, KOOVAPADY.P.O,PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.C.MOIDEEN KUTTY SMT.SEEMA.E.GEORGE SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN SMT.V.H.JASMINE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM.P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST.ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOOVAPADY.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 1275 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext. P2 application preferred before the second respondent for enhancement of the power allocation to the petitioner’s unit and stated as now pending before the third respondent has not been acted upon, reportedly for the reason that some amounts are allegedly due from the petitioner to the respondent Board. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged liability as per Ext. P6 has already been subjected to challenge by filing W.P.(C) 36788 of 2007 and the realization of the said amount has been intercepted by this Court as per Ext. P7 interim order . The learned Counsel further submits that the said liability having been stayed by this Court, it cannot be stated as valid and subsisting as on date, so as to have it realized before the application put up by the petitioner is considered. The law declared by this Court as per Ext.P8 judgment pertaining to similar issue, is also referred to in this W.P.(C) No. 1275 OF 2010 2 regard. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Board as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the third respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 application for enhancement of power allocation and to finalise the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that the issue forming the subject matter of the W.P.(C) No. 36788 of 2007 as to the alleged liability, which stands stayed by virtue of Ext. P7 interim order, shall not be a bar for considering and finalizing the proceedings as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk