IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30870 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- TATA TALE SERVICES LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AT TOWER 1, 10TH FLOOR JEEVAN BHARATHI, 124, CANNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI AND LOCAL OFFICE AT SL PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY(MANAGER) MR.BOBBY JOSEPH BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER , KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION,OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DIST PIN-679101 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) ELECTIRICAL CIRCLE ,KERALA STATE ELECRICITY BOARD SHOURNUR, PALAKKAD-679122 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP.BY ITS SECRETARY , PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695004 R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA-KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 30870/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR DTD 30/12/2009 P2: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD 31/12/2009 P3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD 12/1/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT P4: COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT DTD 4/2/2010 P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.2/3/2010 P6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL DTD 31/5/2010 P7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD 6/9/2010 P8: COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD 2/5/2011 P9: COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD 1/8/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30870 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition filed by a consumer of electrical energy is for an order directing the respondents to sanction additional connected load as requested in Ext.P7. It is contended that on account of the failure of the respondents to sanction the additional connected load applied for, the petitioner is being penalised for unauthorised use of electrical energy in excess of the permissible connected load. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing today, Smt.P.K.Radhika, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board submitted that orders were not passed on Ext.P7 for the reason that the capacity of the transformer did not permit increase in connected load, that the capacity of the transformer has been enhanced and that the respondents will consider the petitioner's request and take an appropriate decision in the event of the petitioner filing a fresh application for enhancement of the connected load. WPC No.30870/2011 2 3. The respondents have no case that Ext.P7 was rejected. That apart, if the petitioner were to file a fresh application for enhancement of the connected load, the petitioner will lose the priority based on Ext.P7 application. In such circumstances I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority among the respondents to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P7 representation to increase the connected load expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.30870/2011 3