IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11186 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- TATA TELE SERVICES LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TOWER 1, 10TH FLOOR, JEEVAN BHARATI, 124 CANNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI AND LOCAL OFFICE AT SL PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.BOBBY JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KSEB, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO.11187/09,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 11186 & 11187 OF 2009 (P) =========================== Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance in these writ petitions is against Exts.P1 and P2. 2. Petitioner is a company engaged in providing mobile cellular telephone services in Kerala. Their installations at Kumbazha in Pathanamthitta District and Ulilliyeri at Calicut District were inspected and on finding that the infrastructure including energy supplied was being shared with other similar licencees, they were issued provisional penal bills. Objection was filed, but however by Ext.P1 orders produced in these writ petitions, the provisional bills were confirmed, and as a consequence thereof, Ext.P2 invoices were issued demanding payment. Although they filed appeals, prescribed fee was not paid and therefore the appeals were not entertained. It is challenging Exts.P1 and P2 mentioned above, these writ petitions are filed. 3. Subsequent to the aforesaid developments, the Board has issued order dated 27/5/2009 clarifying that individual service WPC 11186 & 11187/09 :2 : providers availing infrastructure facilities from a licenced infrastructure provider through a common tower can share power supplied to the premises. In view of the clarification, the contrary view taken in Exts.P1 and P2 referred to above needs to be reconsidered. 4. Therefore, irrespective of the defective appeals that have been filed by the petitioner, Exts.P1 and P2 referred to above are quashed with a direction that the issue shall be reconsidered by the 1st respondent in these writ petitions with notice to the petitioner. 5. It is noticed that pursuant to the interim orders passed by in these writ petitions, petitioner has made payments for reconnection. It is clarified that the amounts thus remitted will be appropriated depending upon the outcome of the reexamination of the matter as ordered above. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp