IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 24072 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.PRASEEJA, MANOHAR JESELLERIES, JEWEL HOUSE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PAYYANNUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PAYYANNUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PAYYANNUR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.24072 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is a partner of Manohar Jewellery in Payyannur town. It is stated that the firm is availing of supply of electrical energy with consumer No.10245, under respondents 2 to 4. They are now facing the liability to pay about Rs.6 lakhs. 3. It is stated that since the building, where the shop is now located, is a reconstructed one, in respect of which, due to various disputes, ownership certificate has not been issued so far. As a result of this, the petitioner could not get the power connection regularised. Consequently, for unauthorised additional load, they are being levied penalty in terms of the provisions contained under the Electricity Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. 4. It is seen that the demand was confirmed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as per Ext.P18 order. An appeal was filed before the Ombudsman resulting in Ext.P28 order WP(C) No.24072/2009 -2- dated 30/07/2009, where the Board was directed to issue monthwise statement of liability and other dues from the petitioner, and the petitioner was advised to take steps for regularising the power connection. It is stated that in pursuance to the order, they have been issued the bills and the balance liability outstanding is about Rs.6 lakhs. It is stated that subsequently, they have been issued Ext.P31 informing that non-payment of the amount due from them, will result in disconnection of power supply. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed. 5. Having regard to the fact that the power connection has not been regularised, and in view of the orders passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as also the Ombudsman, this Court cannot find fault with the respondents in issuing the impugned demands. However, as directed by the Ombudsman, it is up to the petitioner to comply with the order of the Ombudsman, by producing necessary documents and getting the power connection regularised. In any case, the demand cannot be faulted, and therefore, the petitioner should discharge the liability. 6. However, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, I feel it is only reasonable that the petitioner is given an easy WP(C) No.24072/2009 -3- instalment facility to discharge the liability, and at the same time, avoiding disconnection as threatened in Ext.P31. Therefore, I direct that the petitioner will be permitted to pay the balance outstanding in ten equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid by the petitioner on or before 29/08/2009, and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 29th of every succeeding month. It is directed that if the payment is made as above without any default, further proceedings in pursuance to Exts.P30 & P31 notice of disconnection of the power supply, shall not be effected. 7. True, the learned counsel for the petitioner has a contention that the petitioner is entitled to get the power connection regularised, and that in which event, the excess amount paid is liable to be refunded. However, such a relief can be sought only if the regularisation is obtained with retrospective effect, in which event, it is up to the petitioner to pursue her claim. 8. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 to 4 for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg