IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36730 of 2010(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SAMPO FROZEN FOODS, AROOKUTTY FERRY ROAD AROOR, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,688 534 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.PRABHAKARAN. BY ADVS. SRI.N.G.SUNIL SMT.P.JAYA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 688 525. 2. THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 688 525. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BAORD, ALAPPUZHA – 688 525. 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 690 001. R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.36730 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Low Tension consumer of the fourth respondent. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 final short assessment bill. 2. In view of the order I propose to pass in this Writ Petition I do not think it necessary to consider the contentions raised in this Writ Petition on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a remedy is available to the petitioner against Ext.P6 before the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum) and Electricity Ombudsman Regulations, 2005( for short the 'Regulation 2005'). In terms of regulation 10 thereunder, the petitioner has a remedy to approach the CGRF. In view of the availability of the alternative efficacious remedy referred to above, I am of the view that the petitioner has to avail that remedy to redress the grievance against Ext.P6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given sufficient time to avail the remedy under Regulation 2005 to raise grievance against Ext.P6. In view of the rival contentions and W.P.(C) NO.36730/2010 2 submissions referred above, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy contemplated under regulation 10 of Regulation 2005. To enable the petitioner to avail the said remedy, two weeks time is granted. In the meanwhile, respondents shall not take any coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P6. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.36730/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.36730/2010 4