IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 32100 of 2002(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- AMMU AMMA, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O. LATE K.KOCHUNNI NAIR, `SUPRABHA', VELIYANNUR, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.THOMAS SRI.SURESH JOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRICHUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, (ELECTRICITY SECTION, ARREAR CELL), CORPORATION OF TRICHUR, TRICHUR. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION FOR R2 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R2 SRI.K.A.SREEJITH FOR R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.54230/2002 IN OP. NO.32100/2002 DISMISSED 03.12.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 14.6.02 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOENR FOR THE PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF ELECTRICITY BILL UPTO 3.1.01 FOR RS. 72,600/-. P2:- COPY OF THE APPEAL DT. 20.7.02 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 14.6.01 FOR RS. 2,356/-. P4:- COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 14.8.01 FOR RS. 1,496/-. P5:- COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 15.10.01 FOR RS. 2,108/-. P6:- COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 12.12.01 FOR RS. 1,710/. P7:- COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT. 16.2.02 FOR RS. 2,268/-. P8:- COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 12.4.02 FOR RS. 1,516/-. P9:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT. 29.8.02. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No.32100/2002-U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 issued by the respondents demanding an amount of Rs.72,600/- towards electricity charges. The complaint raised by the petitioner is that such amount actually is not due. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition are the following:- 3. Initially the petitioner was directed to remit the above amount as per Ext.P1 notice which was objected to by the petitioner by submitting Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, the demand is not proper as no previous notice showing any arrears have been issued to her. The matter was taken up before this Court earlier in O.P.No.20761/2002. The notice of disconnection was stayed by this Court. Subsequently, as directed by this Court, the petitioner was heard and, apart from that a detailed statement of arrears was given to her showing the split up of arrears of electricity charges due from her for which she has also submitted objection dated 06/09/2002. Again she filed O.P.No.28806/2002. The said original petition is said to be still pending. The challenge in the said original petition appears to be on O.P. No.32100/2002-U -:2:- the same cause of action. Ultimately, rejecting her objection, Ext.P11 was passed. 4. On 01/11/2002, this Court passed a detailed interim order in C.M.P.No.54230/2002, wherein the petitioner was directed to remit Rs.15,000/- within a period of one week for restoring the electricity connection. Another Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid on or before 15/11/2002 and, a further amount of Rs.20,000/- on or before 15/11/2002. The balance amount remaining on the principal namely, Rs.72,600/- was directed to be paid on 15th of the succeeding month. It was also directed that if the petitioner fails to pay any one of the instalments as aforesaid, the respondents will be free to disconnect her power supply. Later, the petitioner sought for extension of time to comply with the directions by filing C.M.P.No.55990/2002, and time was extended upto 30/11/2002 for paying the second instalment. 5. The respondents have filed a detailed statement controverting the detailed averments in the original petition. In Ext.P9 the various details and amounts due have been stated by the respondents. The petitioner even though contends that Ext.P9 is concocted document, nothing have been stated to substantiate the said contention. Now, especially, in the light of the interim order passed by this Court directing the petitioner to remit the amount, what O.P. No.32100/2002-U -:3:- remains is only the interest to be paid by the petitioner for delayed payment. It is seen from Exts.P1 and P11, that computation of the amount representing interest has not been detailed therein. In the grounds of the original petition there is no challenge to the interest claimed. If the petitioner has already remitted the amount as directed by this Court, the respondent will consider the request if any made by the petitioner for remission of the interest portion. Subject to the above observation, the original petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms O.P. No.32100/2002-U -:4:- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No.32100/2002-U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T 3 r d D e c e m b e r , 2 0 0 8 .