IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 501 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7110/2010 Dated 10/10/2010 .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S.JAYASREE METALS, 4/169,AMBALA NAGAR, EXTN KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 REP.BY ITS PROPRIETRESS WHO IS DULY REP.BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR.M.S.N.BALASUBRAMANIYAN PARTY IN PERSON BY DR.M.S.N.BALASUBRAMANIYAN- PARTY IN PERSON RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SRI.SANTHOSHKUMAR AGED 33, S/O.CHANDRAN, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KULATHUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-22 2. SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, WORKING AS THE CHIEF ENGINEER,SOUTH(DISTRIBUTION) KSEB, POWER HOUSE ROAD, TRIVANDRUM-695001 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB BY SENIOR ADV.SRI.P.SANTHAINGHAM, SC, KSEB. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MM Con.Case(C).N o. 501 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 JUDGMENT IN WP(C)7110/10 ANNEXURE 2 NOTICE FROM THE PETITIONER DTD. 12-03-2011 ANNEXURE 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPTS OF P-2 ANNEXURE 4 REPLY FROM R-2 DTD. 13-5-2011 ANNEXURE 5 BILLS & PAYMENTS TILL MAY 2011 RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1(a) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04-04-2011 ANNEXURE R1(b) COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 13-05-2011 TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE MM C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- COC.No.501 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 10th October, 2011 JUDGMENT This contempt case has been filed alleging willful disobedience with the directions in the judgment dated 10.11.2010 in W.P.(C)No.7110 of 2010. As per the said judgment, to enable the third respondent to make a fresh consideration of the whole issue involved in the said writ petition, Ext.P5 referred as such therein was ordered to be treated as notice and the petitioner was given the liberty to raise his objections and claims with respect to the matters dealt with under Ext.P5. On such fresh consideration, Annexure A8 order dated 5.7.2011 was passed. It would reveal that the petitioner had successfully established that he was over charged and on account of the same an amount of Rs.1,58,320/- including interest is liable to be refunded. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since in the judgment dated 10.11.2010 in W.P.(C)No.7110 of 2010 the respondents were directed to consider and pass fresh orders in terms of Ext.P2 judgment and since Ext.P2 judgment contained a direction that any excess payment realized should be given credit towards the subsequent bills, without a clarification of the said direction the respondents would not be in a position to effect COC.No.501/2011 2 refund of the amount mentioned above. In the said context, it is relevant to refer to the operative portion of the judgment dated 10.11.2010. After giving liberty to the petitioner to raise his objections and claims with respect to the matters dealt with under Ext.P5 the writ petition was disposed of as hereunder:- “On receipt of the same, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass fresh order in terms of Ext.P2 judgment and in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” The relevant provisions of law regarding refund of an amount overcharged from a consumer are contained in Regulation 24(6) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and Regulation 37(6) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. They read thus:- “24. Disputes in bill.- (6) If it is established that after payment of the bill, the Licensee has overcharged the consumer, the excess amount shall be repaid within two months with interest at twice the bank rate.” “37. Disputes in Bill.- (6) If it is established that after payment of the bill, the Board has overcharged the consumer, the excess amount shall be repaid within two months with interest at twice the bank rate.” Thus, it is evident that, going by the aforesaid provisions, if it is established that after payment of the bill the licencee has overcharged a consumer, the excess amount shall be repaid within two months with COC.No.501/2011 3 interest at twice the bank rate. In fact, it is based on the said provisions that the amount was quantified in Annexure A8. I do not think that the directions in the judgment dated 10.11.2010 in W.P.(C)No.7110 of 2010 would stand in the way of effecting refund in terms of the aforesaid provisions. True that, in the said judgment, the third respondent was directed to consider and pass fresh orders in terms of Ext.P2. At the same time, it is specifically directed therein that such consideration and passing of orders shall be in accordance with law. The above quoted provisions would reveal that once it is found that the consumer was overcharged by the licencee, in terms of the provisions, the said overcharged amount is liable to be refunded within two months with interest at twice the bank rate. In the said circumstances, there shall not be any impediment for effecting refund of the amount mentioned in Annexure A8 order in terms of the above mentioned provisions. With the above clarification, this contempt case is closed. It is made clear that in case the petitioner has any further grievance against Annexure A8 order, it will be open to him to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS