IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31778 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABY MATHEW, S/O. LATE MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, THAMARASSERIL HOUSE, KALLOORKADU P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA (VIA), ERNAKULAM, PROPRIETOR OF M/S NORMAN CRUBS. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BYHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KALLOORKADU P.O., KALLOORKADU. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 31778 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T In respect of an electricity connection granted to the petitioner for running a mini crumb rubber unit, the petitioner is bound to pay unconnected minimum charges. The petitioner defaulted payment of the unconnected minimum. Recovery proceedings were initiated. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C).No.26281/2009 and obtained Ext.P1 judgment granting extension of time to pay the amount. However, even after payment of the same, as evidenced by Ext.P2, the petitioner has again been issued with Ext.P4 notice directing him to pay a further amount of Rs.71,488/-. The petitioner challenges the same. Even according to the petitioner, this amount is towards surcharge for delay in payment of the unconnected minimum, which, according to the petitioner, is not payable by him. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is submitted that in respect of the unconnected minimum payable by the petitioner, surcharge is payable. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he would not pay surcharge on the amounts due, is the contention of the respondents. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Surcharge is statutory. Therefore, the petitioner cannot 2 seek waiver of the same. In view of the said legal position, the petitioner seeks facility to pay the balance amounts due in instalments. This also opposed by the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board. However, taking a lenient view, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to pay the balance amounts due in instalments. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The balance amount due from the petitioner as demanded by the respondents, with future surcharge shall be paid by the petitioner in six equal monthly instalments starting from 1.1.2010. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on the due dates without default, further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any one instalment, it would be open to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings for enforcing payment of the entire amount in a lump sum. It shall also be a condition for the above facility that the petitioner shall pay the monthly unconnected minimum charges without default. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3