IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 W.A. No. 925 of 2009() AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.6134/2009 Dated 03/04/2009 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S. HAM SAVENI CARBIDES, NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PALAKKAD. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM . 6. FULL TIME MEMBERS, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. NO. 925 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 6134/2009 pending further consideration of the matter. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P14 and P16 and for issuing a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get re-connection in the light of Ext.P3 and on the basis of the recommendation of the respondents 4 to 6 without paying any amount towards cost of works in the distribution side and for other consequential reliefs. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, directed the petitioner /appellant to pay an amount of Rs.36,00,493/- and to execute agreements as conditions to give reconnection, of course with a further condition that he will commence payment of the installments within a period of one month from the date of payment of the above said amount of Rs. 36,00,493/-. This is a provisional W.A.925/2009 :2: arrangement and subject to the result of the writ petition, without prejudice to the contention of the other side. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner is preferred this appeal. 2. We, in the normal course, would not have been entertained a writ appeal against an interim order. But having due regard to the fact that the main prayer sought for in the writ petition is for a direction to give connection without insisting for any further payment from him and by way of an interim order petitioner has been directed to remit a sizable amount pending further consideration and thus, virtually dealt with one of the main reliefs in the writ petition. Hence we heard the matter on merits. Admittedly, petitioner's connection was dismantled he having defaulted payment of electricity dues. He want to restart his industry. For this, he made a representation. Discussions were held at the highest level and Ext.P8 shows that certain decisions were taken in the meeting held between the parties. Three points were raised for decision by the Special Officer in Ext.P10 issued pursuant to Ext.P8. By Ext.P11 the decision of the Board has been communicated by the Special Officer (Revenue). Ext.P11 is dated 3.2.2009. It clearly shows that the petitioner had paid the principal amount. By the said communication, he was asked to remit the duty arrears W.A.925/2009 :3: amounting to Rs.2,34,522/- Further, he was directed to file an undertaking regarding withdrawal of all the cases and also to pay the interest as per One Time Settlement. Subsequently, as per Ext.P13 letter the Special Officer (Revenue), informed the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Palakkad, that the appellant has remitted the entire principal arrear amount as suggested by the Chairman of the Kerala State Electricity Board in the meeting in order to effect reconnection as a revival measure and since the appellant has complied with the direction of the Chairman of the Board, the Deputy Chief Engineer was requested to do the needful for effecting reconnection as per rules so as to resume production by 15th February, 2009. It also mentioned that an amount of Rs.4,25,816/- is lying at the credit of the consumer towards security deposit. However reconnection was given in stead Ext.P14 letter dated 21.2.2009 was issued advising the petitioner to remit a further amount of Rs.13,50,493/- towards the cost of works in the Distribution side for effecting supply to the appellant firm. Later, a statement is filed requiring the petitioner to pay a total amount of Rs.36 lakhs which includes the collateral contribution to be made as mentioned in Ext.P14 of an amount of Rs. 13,50,493/- as also an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs being the security deposit to be made for giving new W.A.925/2009 :4: connection. 4. Whether or not the petitioner is liable ultimately to pay this amount of Rs. 36 lakhs need not be considered at this stage since we are only considering as to whether as a condition for reconnection any further amount is required to be deposited by the petitioner as a provisional arrangement and if so, how much amount he has to remit. In this regard, we have already pointed out that no mention is made in Exts.P11 and P13 about the further amount of contribution he has to make, as contained in Ext.P14 order - the security deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Be that it may, if the appellant is statutorily liable to pay such amount, we cannot say that he is not liable to pay this amount at all. However, these matters are yet to be considered by this Court. Admittedly, some amount is lying with the respondent Board as balance towards security deposit. Therefore, the deficit to make the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs will roughly come to Rs. 16 lakhs. Though the appellant disputes his liability to pay this amount until a final decision is taken , we cannot accept the said contention at this stage. Therefore, there will be a direction that in case the petitioner deposits a further amount of Rs. 16 lakhs (Sixteen lakhs) within two weeks, the respondent shall restore supply by reconnection within a period of two weeks thereafter. The amount as W.A.925/2009 :5: directed above will be provisional and subject to the contentions that are available to be raised by either side. This is only in partial modification of the order made by the learned Single Judge and the appellant is also liable to make instalments / payments as directed in the order with which we are not interfering. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. KNC/-