IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3518 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JASMINE LIYAKATH, ZIANA ICE PLANT AND COLD STORAGE, PURAKKAD. P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, AMBALAPPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. ASSISTATN ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOAED, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 3518 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 5th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs. (i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondents to restore power supply relating to the Industrial Unit owned by the petitioner vide consumer No. 8522 of Ambalappuzha Section without any further delay. (ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the 1st respondent to consider and take decision on Exhibit P9 objection filed by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner and affording her with an opportunity of being heard. (iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondents refund/adjust the excess amount collected from the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, because of the disconnection effected by the respondents, huge loss and hardships are caused to the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner has already satisfied the entire amount and as a matter of fact, much amount is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner are not correct and that the necessary deductions have already been made and only the actual balance WP(C) No.3518/2010 2 has been stipulated to be satisfied by the petitioner. The nature of contentions as raised in the present Writ Petition is stated as almost the same as on the previous occasion, as evident from Ext.P6 judgment. However, the learned standing counsel submits that Ext.P9 statement of objections submitted by the petitioner can be considered on merits, on condition that the petitioner satisfies a portion of the liability. 4. Accordingly, after hearing both the sides, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- and on satisfying the said requirement, the electric connection of the petitioner shall be restored forthwith. Subject to this, the objection preferred by the petitioner as borne by Ext.P9 shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the 1st respondent on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the deposit satisfy by the petitioner as above will be subject to the decision to be passed by the 1st respondent as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc