IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1384 of 2009 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.7214/2003 DATED 28.5.2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ B.RAVINDRAN NAIR, PLOT NO.III, NEHRU NAGAR, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT. THRISSUR CORPORATION. 2. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS FOR R1 & R2 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1384 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. Writ petitioner is the appellant. The dispute pertains to the levy of electricity charges. The learned Single Judge relegated the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. The main contention is that the writ petition having been pending before this Court for the last six years, it may not be proper for this Court to again relegate the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. 2. When the writ appeal came up for admission, we directed the parties to be present before us. We have gone through the records also. We find that in the case of the petitioner there is a marked difference in the consumption of electricity starting from March, 1994 onwards upto September, 1996. We also find from the records that there has been a meter change. It is not disputed W.A.No.1384 of 2009 - 2 - that the main dispute is on the billing for the period from March, 1994 to September, 1996. We find that the records are pretty old and it is in the interest of the Corporation also that the dispute is given a quietus once for all. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the interests of the parties and the interest of justice would be served if the quietus is given in the following manner. 3. The disputed period takes in 31 months from March, 1994 to September, 1996. The Corporation may rework the bills in respect of the said period by taking the average of either 31 months prior to March, 1994 or 31 months after September, 1996. We make it clear that it will be open to the Corporation to take the more advantageous of the two options. This exercise shall be done by the Corporation within a period of two weeks from today. A fresh demand notice shall be issued to the appellant/petitioner on the basis of such recalculation. The amounts already remitted pursuant to the interim orders of this Court shall be duly credited. For W.A.No.1384 of 2009 - 3 - the balance, the appellant/petitioner shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% with effect from September, 1996. The amount reworked as above shall be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice from the Corporation. We make it clear that this is in full and final settlement of all the disputes pertaining to the period upto 31.12.2000. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Kurian Joseph, Judge vns