IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15540 of 2009(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ K.R.BHARATHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL (H), VALUMMEL ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THOPPUMPADY ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, THOPPUMPADY. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1AND2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.15540 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a two storeyed building and is a domestic consumer paying charges under LT I(a) tariff. There was an inspection at his premises, when it was found that the ground floor of the building was let out as Working Women's Hostel. The meter was also found to be faulty. Accordingly, the meter was replaced and thereafter on 18/03/2009, a bill was issued applying tariff under LT VIIA. That was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.12752/2009. By Ext.P2 judgment, the respondents were directed to consider the representation filed against the bill. In pursuance thereof, Ext.P4 order has been passed confirming the demand, but, however, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to apply for tariff change, if the building is vacant as claimed by the petitioner. It would appear that subsequently, he was issued Ext.P5 bill, applying tariff under LT VIIA, and demanding Rs.13,632/-. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also made Ext.P6 application for tariff change, on which order is yet to be passed. 2. From the above, it is obvious that the grievance of the WP(C) No.15540/2009 -2- petitioner is primarily against Ext.P5, and his contention is that since the ground floor is lying vacant, there is no basis in applying tariff under LT VIIA, and that he should continue to be charged applying tariff under LT I(a). This will depend upon whether the building is lying vacant as claimed by the petitioner. In my view, this the petitioner has to raise before the 2nd respondent himself by filing an appropriate objection to Ext.P5. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent raising objections against Ext.P5, in which event the 2nd respondent shall consider the objections and pass orders thereon. The petitioner shall file the objection within ten days from today, and the 2nd respondent shall pass orders thereon within four weeks thereafter. While so his application for tariff change also will be considered. In the meanwhile, it will be open to the petitioner to pay the amount demanded in Ext.P5 under protest and necessary adjustment will be made by the respondents depending upon the order to be passed on consideration of his objections to Ext.P5. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg