IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 6955 of 2007(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ C.M.SUGUNAN, PROPRIETOR, CEEYEM WOOD INDUSTRIES, KANNOTHUMCHAL ROAD, KANNUR-6. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHYTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KANNUR. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E.B., KANNUR. ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.6955/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.294/9290 DATED 15.1.99 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF the RECEIPT NO.285/1028 DT 24.3.00 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF the ELECTRICITY BILL NO.187583 DT 28.6.01 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECIEPT NO.187583 DT 28.6.01 ISSUED BY THE THIRD REPSNDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ELECTRICITIY BILL NO.B.723201 DT 5.4.02 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BILL NO.189327 DT 16.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.250/839 DT 24.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF the ORDER NO.RBI/13/2002-03/347 DT 19.4.02 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 23.6.06 IN OP NO.13981/02 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P11: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT 9.2.07 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: TRUE PHTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND AND DISCONNECTION NOTICE DT 17.2.07 DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,452/ //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 6955 OF 2007 (C) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is running a small scale wood industry availing of supply of electrical energy with Consumer No.1525. 2. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is mainly against Ext.P6, which is stated to be a penal bill issued in respect of Consumer No.1525 demanding a sum of Rs.36,904/-. He filed an appeal to the 2nd respondent, and during its pendency, as per Ext.P8, 1/3rd of the amount demanded by Ext.P6 was also remitted. The appeal was rejected by Ext.P9. That order was challenged before this Court in OP No.13981/2002. The Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment directing reconsideration of the matter in the light of the judgment in WA No.1231/03. 3. Accordingly, matter was reconsidered and the appeal was disposed of by Ext.P11 order reducing the penalty amount demanded in Ext.P6 to two times the energy charges payable under the applicable tariff. Accordingly, revised bill was issued as per Ext.P12, demanding Rs.18,452/-. It was at that stage, the writ WPC 6955/07 :2 : petition was filed challenging Ext.P12 and also the levy of interest on the amount demanded in Ext.P6. 4. Counsel for the petitioner now points out that during the pendency of the writ petition by invoice dated 14/3/2007, even Ext.P12 revised bill was again revised, demanding a sum of Rs.5,291/-, which according to the counsel has already been paid. Presently, learned counsel for the petitioner complains that for the period from June 2002 to July 2003, towards interest on Rs.36,904/- demanded as per Ext.P6, Rs.6,894/- was realised from the petitioner. It is stated that since the demand by Ext.P6 was revised twice and is now fixed at Rs.5,291, the realisation of interest for the aforesaid period is erroneous and that the said amount is liable to be refunded. Yet another complaint that is now made is that 1/3rd of the amount remitted by the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal filed against Ext.P6 as per Ext.P8 receipt has not been accounted. 5. In so far as the realisation of interest is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that towards interest for the period from June 2002 to July 2003, Rs.6,894/- has been realised based on Ext.P6 demand. Admittedly, the said demand was revised by WPC 6955/07 :3 : Ext.P12 and again by invoice dated 14/3/2007. In such a situation, realisation of interest on the amount demanded by Ext.P6 cannot be sustained and needs to be revised. Further, if as stated by the petitioner, 1/3rd of the amount remitted by the petitioner by Ext.P8 has not been accounted so far, the said remittance also needs to be accounted and given credit. 6. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for refund of the interest realised as above and also to account 1/3rd amount paid by the petitioner as per Ext.P8 and pass orders on the production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that once orders are passed as above, any amount found to be refundable to the petitioner, shall be adjusted towards the petitioner's future bills. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp