IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14290 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GOVINDA BHAT, S/O.LATE SUBRAYA BHAT, BALLECHAL HOUSE, KINNINGAR POST, NETTANIGE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. ISWARA PRASAD, S/O.SHAM BHAT, KAIPANGALA HOUSE, KINNINGAR POST, NETTANIGE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, S/O.NARAYANA BHAT, KAIPANAGALA HOUSE, KINNINGAR POST, NETTANIGE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4. BALAKRISHNA POOJARI @ S.BALAKRISHNA, S/O.SHANKAPPA POOJARI, SANGATHAKATTE HOUSE, KINIMOGARU POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5. MUTHAPPA POOJARI, S/O.CHIKKAPPA POOJARI, MOOLATHADKA HOUSE, KINNINGAR POST, NETTANIGE POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 6. NARAYANA NAIK, S/O.GOVINDA NAIK, ENDUMOOLE, KINNINGAR POST, NETTANIGE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEAPRTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, DWARAKA NAGAR, KASARAGOD. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MULLERIA SECTION, MULLERIA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY SC SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.14290 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Some of the petitioners are parties to Ext.P1 Minimum Guarantee Agreement, while the others are the legal representatives of its signatories. 2. According to the petitioners, though the agreement was executed on 30.3.1989, work in terms of the agreement was completed and line was energized only on 17.8.1999. It is stated that, in the meanwhile, on account of the inordinate delay in making available the proper supply, many of the beneficiaries shifted their residence and thus ceased to be the beneficiaries of the agreement or the line that was drawn. However, by Exts.P4 to P9 notices they were called upon to make substantial deposits towards the minimum guarantee dues. They objected to the demands so made but however, by Ext.P10 proceedings of the 3rd WP(c).N.14290/09 2 respondent demand was confirmed, but the surcharge was waived. Petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer but however that was returned by Ext.P11, on the ground that the Chief Engineer is not the appellate authority. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that the remedy against Exts.P4 to P9 available to the petitioners is to approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum. If as stated, the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum is the competent body to deal with the grievance of the petitioners, it is for them to approach the said forum. 4. It is directed that if the petitioners file application before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum within 4 weeks from today, the complaints will be duly dealt with, with notice to the parties. Subject to the filing of the petitions as aforesaid, it is directed that further proceedings for realizing the amount claimed under Exts.P4 to P9 shall be deferred until a decision is taken by the said Forum. WP(c).N.14290/09 3 If a petition is filed as above, the Forum shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE WP(c).N.14290/09 4