IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19148 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.V.K.GOPINATHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 64 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, STAR VISION CABLE T.V.NETWORK, KOORKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 19148 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner faces certain proceedings on the ground that disputes towards rent for utilising the poles of the electrical distribution system of the Thrissur Corporation has not been paid. The petitioner utilises those poles for stringing cables in the petitioner's activity as a Cable T V Operator. His plea is that the enhancement in the rental was made by the Corporation when the KSEB had increased the rates and on no other grounds. Therefore, he pleads that since KSEB has reduced the enhanced rental, first respondent Corporation has also to reduce it. The Corporation is an independent entity. Therefore, it may be inappropriate for this court to now issue a direction merely depending upon the decision of the KSEB. Not only that the matter in hand is essentially one in the realm of contracts. The plea of the petitioner that he is similarly situated to another consumer, Asianet and he is compelled to pay higher rate when Asianet is compelled to pay lesser rates, will also be considered Wpc 19148/2009 2 by the Corporation. However, since Ext.P8 has been made by the petitioner, it is ordered that the competent in the first respondent Corporation will take up Ext.P8 and render a decision thereon, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances. Let this follow within a period of one month from now and petitioner would continue to pay at the rates at which he is paying as of now. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/4/8