IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17786 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHERIAN.P.V., AGED 56, S/O.P.C.VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, WEST COAST ICE FACTORY, P.O.CHERAI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, P.O.CHERAI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B.ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CHERAI SECTION, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1,2 MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.17786 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 bill issued by the respondent Board. According to the petitioner, the bill issued represents an exorbitant amount and the reason thereof is stated to be the belated recording of the energy consumption. The petitioner submits that till now monthly bills were being issued based on the consumption recorded on the first of every month. It is stated that in June, 2009 alone as against 01/06/2009, the meter readings were taken only on 11/06/2009, and that resulted in the recording of higher consumption and leading to demand of huge amount. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P1, he submitted Ext.P2 offering to pay 50% of the amount demanded. But, however, that was not accepted. It is thereupon, the writ petition is filed praying that Ext.P1 be quashed and for a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P2, where he has offered to pay 50% of the amount demanded in Ext.P1. WP(C) No.17786/2009 -2- 2. In my view, the petitioner cannot claim any relief in this writ petition. Pleadings in the writ petition do not show that the consumption recorded by the respondents, apart from that it is belated, is not correct for any reason. If that be so, he cannot have a case of excess billing. Even otherwise, if the petitioner is disputing the amount demanded, he has to make payment as provided in Section 56(1)(a) or (b). The offer made in Ext.P2 is not in compliance with the above. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P1. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg