IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32177 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S A.V.G. MOTORS LIMITED, ANCHERIL BUILDINGS, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. A.V.GEORGE. BY ADV. MR.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA MR.TERRY V.JAMES MR.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOTTAYAM EAST. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PALLOM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 32177 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is the authorized dealer of Maruti vehicles. Grievance of the petitioner is that an application as evidenced by Ext.P9, submitted for additional power allocation and energisation, has not been considered and disposed of by the competent authority among the respondents. It is stated that there exist a dispute with respect to the tariff under which the petitioner has to be charged. The dispute is as to whether the consumption will fall under tariff for LT-IV or under LT-VII-A. Earlier, there was a direction issued by this court to the appellate authority to take decision on the matter. But a decision taken by the appellate authority was again challenged, being not in compliance with the directions issued by this court and because the order was passed totally discarding report of the Commission appointed by this court. W.P.(C)No. 32177 of 2009 -2- However, now the matter stands again remitted back for taking fresh decision by another competent officer to be appointed by the 1st respondent. This court has already set aside the appellate order issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer. 2. As things stands as stated above, it is clear and evident that the dispute which is existing with respect to the tariff is not a bar for considering Ext.P9 application. Additional power allocation and energisation can be granted based on the eligibility and feasibility. Notwithstanding the dispute pertaining to the tariff it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the additional power allocation applied for pertains to the workshop section and such power is intended to be used for repairing works of vehicles. Considering those factual aspects the competent authority has to take a decision on Ext.P9 as expeditiously as possible, within a time frame to be stipulated. W.P.(C)No. 32177 of 2009 -3- 3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider Ext.P9 and to dispose of the same as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/