IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22656 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JACOB MATHEW MADATHIL, PUTHENPURAYIL, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KOTTAYAM. 4. TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 2 MR.K.RAMESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.22656 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Low Tension Consumer of electrical energy supplied by respondents 1 & 2. Following an inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad, bills were issued, which were challenged before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam in OP NO.74 & 75 of 1995. It is stated that by Exts.P2 & P2(a) orders rendered by the CDRF on 31/12/2002, the bills were cancelled. Although, appeals have been filed by respondents 1 & 2 before the State Commission against Exts.P2 & P2(a) orders referred to above, the petitioner states that there is no interlocutory orders passed by the State Commission, and therefore, revenue recovery proceedings that was initiated in the meanwhile, for realising the amount due under Exts.P1 & P1(a) bills are liable to be recalled. 2. The petitioner submits that since the recovery proceedings are still kept pending, he is not in a position to get the mutation of a property, which he has sold effected in the name of WP(C) No.22656/2009 -2- the purchaser It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the respondents to recall the revenue recovery proceedings. 3. Although, it is a fact that orders have been rendered by the CDRF, Kottayam, cancelling Exts.P1 & P1(a) bills, still having regard to the pendency of the appeal filed before the State Commission, this Court will not be justified in issuing directions as sought for, without providing sufficient safeguards to respondents 1 & 2 to realise its dues, in the event the appeals are decided in their favour. 4. Having regard to the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- That on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent shall quantify the amount due to it, after giving credit to the amounts, which have already been realised towards the liability under Exts.P1 & P1(a) referred to above. It is directed that once the amount is intimated to him, the petitioner shall furnish a Bank Guarantee for the full amount which shall be kept alive until the disposal of the appeals filed by the Board against Exts.P2 & P2(a) WP(C) No.22656/2009 -3- orders of the CDRF. In case there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to renew the same at any point of time it will be open to the 2nd respondent to encash the Bank Guarantee, and realise its dues. It is directed that once the Bank Guarantee is furnished as above, respondents 1 & 2 shall give intimation to the authority concerned recalling the revenue recovery requisition issued by them for recovering the dues under Exts.P1 & P1(a) referred to above. 5. The petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the respondents for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg