IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 26729 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (L&B) O/O.THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION VELLIKULANGARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-2 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 26729 OF 2008 (F) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Essentially what the petitioner claims is the benefit of Ext.P1 judgment. Ext.P1 is a judgment rendered by this Court in OP No.3621/2002. That was a case filed by the petitioner herein, claiming that fixed charges collected from him beyond the period of six months after disconnection of supply should be refunded. In the judgment holding that within six months from the date of disconnection, the Board is liable to dismantle the connection and that the fixed charges cannot be collected beyond the said six months period, this Court directed the Board to refund the fixed charges realised from the petitioner for the period beyond six months. Subsequently, petitioner claimed refund of the excess amounts collected from them by filing Exts.P2, P4 and P5. By Ext.P3, they were informed that the matter is under consideration. Refund was not made and therefore this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents inform that against Ext.P1 judgment, they have filed WA No.2145/08 and that it was on account of the pendency of the writ appeal that refund WPC 26729/08 :2 : could not be made. This submission was made when the writ petition came up for orders in September 2008. Although since the filing of this writ petition, this is the tenth posting, even according to the counsel for the respondents, delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned and the appeal is not yet admitted. In view of this, I do not think there is any justification to keep this writ petition pending any further. 3. As already noticed, consequent on Ext.P1 judgment of this Court, petitioner is entitled to be refunded the amount collected as fixed charges for the period beyond six months of disconnection of supply. In view of the above judgment, the excess amount collected from the petitioner is liable to be refunded. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to refund the amount ordered in Ext.P1, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp