IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31865 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOPIKAS PACKAGING INDUSTRIES, REPD.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, GOPI CHAKKUNNATH, PATTIPARAMBU, THIRUVILWAMALA(PO), THRISSUT DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AJITH KUMARI, THE ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR DIST-680588. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPD. BY DY. CHIEF ENGINEER, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680004. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.31865 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a partnership firm which is running an industrial unit for manufacturing packing cartons. There are disputes between the petitioner and the Kerala State Electricity Board as regards Ext.R1(a) demand notice dated 11.9.2006 whereby the Board demanded payment of the sum of Rs.61,359/- as energy charges. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner has filed C.C.No.257 of 2008 in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the said demand and the said complaint is still pending. The said complaint was filed on 4.4.2008, more than 1½ years after Ext.R1(a) demand notice was issued. The pleadings also disclose that challenging the said invoice the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, which was rejected by Ext.R1(b) order dated 6.2.2008. However, the Deputy Chief Engineer granted the petitioner an opportunity to pay the bill amount in three instalments, namely 50% as the first W.P(C).No.31865 of 2010 -:2:- instalment and the balance 50% in two equal instalments. It was thereafter that the petitioner moved the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum challenging the said invoice. 2. It appears in the meanwhile the petitioner had submitted Exts.P1 and P2 applications seeking additional power allocation of 12 KW for the petitioner's industrial unit. This writ petition is filed contending that though more than two years have passed after the request for additional power allocation was made, till date orders have not been passed thereon. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to sanction additional power allocation as requested in Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the first respondent to pay the sum of Rs.10,001/- as compensation for the loss suffered by the petitioner on account of the delay on the part of the first respondent in sanctioning the additional power allocation. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 25.11.2010 and an additional counter affidavit dated 25.1.2011. The main contention put forward by the respondents is that it was in view of the non-payment of the energy charges demanded in Ext.R1(a) invoice that orders were not passed on the request made by the petitioner for additional power allocation. It is also stated that the W.P(C).No.31865 of 2010 -:3:- petitioner has paid only 50% of the amount demanded in Ext.R1(a) and the balance 50% with interest is still due. 4. I heard Sri.M.K.Dileepkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., 2009 (1) KLT 253 (SC) that even in the absence of a rule or regulation, the Kerala State Electricity Board can stipulate the terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper to regulate its transactions and dealings with consumers. It was submitted that the petitioner's application for additional power allocation was not disposed of as the petitioner had not remitted the balance amount payable under Ext.R1(a) invoice and that the Board can issue orders sanctioning the additional load only after the balance amount is remitted along with interest. 5. The petitioner has admittedly remitted only 50% of the amount demanded in Ext.R1(a) demand notice. The petitioner has not remitted the balance 50% as the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur has passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain the status quo until further orders. The interim order passed W.P(C).No.31865 of 2010 -:4:- by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur is in force from 4.4.2008. More than two years and eight months have passed after the petitioner filed a complaint in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It was in view of the interim order of stay passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that the petitioner did not pay the balance amount due as per Ext.R1(b) demand notice. However I find merit and force in the submission of the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board that even in the absence of any rule, the Board can stipulate terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper to regulate its transactions and dealings with consumers. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the Board cannot be asked to sanction additional power allocation to the petitioner without any safeguards. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for the principal amount of Rs.30,680/- in favour of the Kerala State Electricity Board or depositing the said amount under protest subject to the outcome of C.C. No.257 of 2008 presently pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, the Board shall sanction the additional power allocation applied for by the petitioner. The petitioner's entitlement to seek adjustment of the money deposited by him W.P(C).No.31865 of 2010 -:5:- pursuant to this order or revocation of the bank guarantee will depend upon the orders to be passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The respondents shall on the petitioner complying with the aforesaid direction sanction the additional power allocation within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner furnishes the bank guarantee or deposits the sum of Rs.30,680/-. The Board shall in the event of the petitioner depositing the money, specifically note in the receipt that the payment is under protest and is made as directed by this Court. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.31865 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 2nd February, 2011