IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19104 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUPRIME STEEL INDUSTRIES, KUTTAMASSERY, ALWAYE- 683 105, REP.BY ITS PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL OFFICER(REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, MUDIKKAL. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.19104 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a High Tension consumer under the respondent Board. The Board issued Ext.P1 notification to the effect that the consumers should install TOD meters at their cost. That was challenged before this court in O.P.No.194/98 in which this court passed Ext.P2 interim order, granting stay of the direction issued by the Board. The Original Petition was finally disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment permitting the Board to collect advance from the consumers, acquire TOD meters and install in the premises of the consumers. Petitioner submits that thereafter no action, what so ever has been initiated by the Board for installation of TOD meter and the meter was installed only on 22.8.2005. Long after that, in March, 2008, along with the regular bill, WP(c).No.19104/09 2 penalty of Rs.48,620/- was demanded from the petitioner on the allegation that it had failed to install TOD meter. Petitioner contested the demand by filing Ext.P4 on the ground that in view of Ext.P2 interim order passed in the Original petition referred to above, there is no reason for the demand. Be that as it may, Ext.P5 has now been issued calling upon the petitioner to remit Rs.2,64,621/-. On its receipt the Petitioner contested the liability once again by filing Ext.P6. It is stated that the Board insisting for the payment of the amount demanded in Ext.P5 and informed that coercive action will be initiated if the amount is not paid. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. The petitioner has been disputing the liability to pay the penalty amount demanded for the alleged non-installation of the TOD meter. The short assessment demand now made by Ext.P5 is towards the aforesaid liability, which once again has been disputed by Ext.P6 mainly relying on Ext.P2 interim order passed by this court. Now that the petitioner has raised his WP(c).No.19104/09 3 objection to Ext.P5 by filing Ext.P6, it is incumbent on the part of the 2nd respondent to decide on Ext.P5 in the light of Ext.P6. This the 2nd respondent shall do with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It will also be open to the petitioner to file any supplementary objections if so desire. It is directed that in the meanwhile further proceedings to recover the amount demanded by Ext.P5 will be kept in abeyance. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.19104/09 4 (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.19104/09 5