IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 29458 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.D.VIJAYARAJAN, S/O.LATE M.DAMODARAN, PROPRIETOR, VIJAYA FILTERS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O., CHERTHALA, - 688 539. BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, S.L.PURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHERTHALA. 3. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 29458 of 2007-F ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayers in the writ petition are as follows: 1). to call for the records pertaining to this case leading to Ext.P8 and quash the same issuing a writ of certiorari; ii). to call for the records from the respondents leading to Ext.P7 and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to give the benefit of Ext.P7 decision to petitioner's unit by waiving the amounts shown as fixed charge for the period from January 2003 till revival of the petitioner's unit; iii). to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing 3rd respondent to grant all the benefits due to petitioner's unit as per Exts.P2, P6 and P7.” 2. Petitioner is the proprietor of a small scale unit. The unit came to be closed due to paucity of WPC No.29458/2007 -2- working capital. Disconnection was effected by first respondent on 29.1.2003 for default of payment of the electrical bills. Petitioner challenged the same in the writ petition. By Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioner was allowed to pay the amount in 12 instalments and to put up a representation. Petitioner took up the matter in W.A.No.2352/2005. By Ext.P4 judgment this court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the Electricity Board that the Board would extend the benefit due to the petitioner by Ext.P2 and considering petitioner's request for remission of interest, the Board will bear in mind Ext.P2. Since the petitioner has paid the first instalment connection was restored and he put up Ext.P5 representation. Thereafter, Ext.P7 paper report was issued as the State Cabinet has decided to waive the Minimum Fixed Charge for all the non-functioning estates and industrial units in the State. Thereafter petitioner has been served with Ext.P8 stating that the Board has WPC No.29458/2007 -3- decided to levy interest @ 18% per annum for the current charges for the period from January, 2003 to August 2007 totaling an amount of Rs.1,44,758/- with a further request to remit the amount on or before 5.10.2007. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board. 4. Even though the original stand taken by the standing counsel was that the representation filed by the petitioner has not been received, subsequently, upon the petitioner producing Ext.P10 acknowledgment receipt of Ext.P5 representation, the learned standing counsel would submit that in the light of the submission made by the counsel before the Division bench the representation has to be considered. In the light of this, he submits that a decision will be taken on the representation. 5. In the light of the above the writ petition is disposed of as follows: Ext.P8 is quashed. The 3rd respondent will WPC No.29458/2007 -4- consider and take a decision on Ext.P5 within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the benefits under Ext.P7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not made any demand for the benefit under Ext.P7. Without making any demand a writ of mandamus cannot be asked. However, for claiming the benefit of Ext.P7 paper report I leave the petitioner free to make appropriate demand before the authority. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS