IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 18988 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN 682 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL, MR.M.V.H.MENON. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY ,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DY.CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICAL CIRLCE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C SANTHOSH - R1 ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2&3 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 18988 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 had closed down its rubber processing factory at Kumbazha Estate in Pathanamthitta in the year 2005. According to the petitioner, in addition to the factory, there are about 352 labour lines, 6 bungalows and 39 staff quarters at the Kumbazha Estate. Earlier, electric supply to those buildings were also effected from the High Tension installation established for the purpose of the factory. After closing down the factory, the petitioner found it unfeasible to continue with the supply from the existing HT installation besides being uneconomical and therefore, submitted an application to the second respondent for dismantling the high tension installation and to provide separate domestic connections to the aforesaid buildings which are now being used only for the purpose of residence of employees of the company. After a long drawn process Ext.P1 order was passed, on 23.6.2008. The relevant portion of Ext.P1 reads WPC.No.18988/2010 : 2 : thus:- “Having examined the matter in detail, sanction is accorded to implement the proposal of Chief Engineer (Distribution-South) to take over the 150 KVA transformer and connected LT lines of M/s. Harrison's Malayalam and to provide independent service connection to 352 labour houses, 6 bungalows and 39 staff quarters at consumer's cost subject to the following conditions. i. All existing arrears of HT/LT consumers are cleared. ii. Withdrawal of the case WPCNo. 34867/2003 pending against the Board filed by the consumer relating to the arrears & full settlement of all the existing arrears. iii.The assessed value of the materials need not be considered for any adjustment. 2. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the delay on the part of the respondents in implementing Ext.P1 order. According to the petitioner, what ever be the formalities and expenditure required for the purpose of implementing Ext.P1, the petitioner would satisfy all the formalities and expenditures in accordance with the provisions under the Electricity Act and Electricity Supply Code, 2005. Having issued an order under Ext.P1, the second and third respondents are bound to implement the same, it is further submitted. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the WPC.No.18988/2010 : 3 : second and third respondents in this writ petition. The relevant portion in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit pertaining to the issue involved in this writ petition reads as hereunder:- iii. The petitioner had not submitted the specified complete set of individual service connection application forms till date to the respondents as per Regulation 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 and also as per Regulation 26 of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. iv. The respondents has got every right to recover in advance the expenses reasonably incurred for providing any electric line or electrical plant required specifically for the purpose of giving such supply to the petitioner as per regulation-7(1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 and regulation 4(1) of KSEB terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that complete set of individual connection applications in terms of regulation 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) of Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and also as per regulation 26 of KSEB terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 will be submitted. It is also submitted that the amount payable in terms of Clause 7(1) of the Electricity Supply Code 2005 and regulation 4(1) of KSEB terms and conditions of Supply 2005 will also be paid by the petitioner provided the respondents two and three make a WPC.No.18988/2010 : 4 : demand for the same strictly, in terms of the Code and the terms and conditions of supply. According to the learned Standing Counsel, an amount of Rs.41,65,844/- is the cost to be remitted for the aforesaid purpose and, in fact, it is the revised estimate prepared in 5 parts. The details of the estimate have been given in the counter affidavit itself. But, a perusal of the revised estimate prepared in 5 parts extracted in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit would reveal that they did not contain the details and basis for the estimate. When such a huge amount is estimated it would only be proper to give the detail of the estimate to let it known to the concerned applicant as also to reveal that the estimation was made in accordance with the provisions under clauses 4 and 7 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005. Such a course of action would enable the concerned consumer to raise grievance, if any, against such estimation. As already noticed, the petitioner has already expressed the readiness to remit the necessary expenditure for the implementation of Ext.P1. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that it is only appropriate on the part of the 2nd and WPC.No.18988/2010 : 5 : 3rd respondents to take necessary steps to implement Ext.P1 order, after giving the details of estimation to the petitioner. It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to prefer objections, if any, against the same before the appropriate authority and in case, the petitioner prefers such an objection it shall be considered by that competent authority expeditiously. At any rate, the whole exercise has to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge