IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12918 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- INDIA TELECOM INFRA LTD,NO.42/1327(1), 2ND FLOOR,V.S.ARCADE,POWER HOUSE ROAD,OPP:POWER HOUSE,KACHERIPADI,COCHIN-682 018,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON, BOBY SEBASTIAN, CIRCLE HEAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP; BY ITS SECRETARY,BOARD SECRETARIAT,VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION, VILAKUDY,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTIRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. P.P. THAJUDHEEN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 12918 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 9th April , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs: 'a) Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or direction calling for entire records leading upto Exhibit P6 and quash the same declaring the same as illegal and further directing to continue the service connection to the petitioner on receiving the tariff under LT VII A with consumer number 9480 under respondent No.2 ; or in the alternative, to direct 3rd respondent, Kerala State Electricity Tariff Regulatory Commission, to decide the issue as to applicable charges, if any, in the case on hand in the light of Exhibit P2, P3, P4 and P5 and may direct the 2nd respondent to continue the service connection to the petitioner on receiving tariff under LT W.P.(C) No. 12918 OF 2010 2 VIIA. b) issue a writ fo mandamus or such other writ or direction directing respondents not to impose penalty on shared infrastructure of petitioner in view of Exhibit P2, P3 and P5. c) Issue such other writs, directions or orders which this Hon'ble Court may find deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and d) Award costs of the proceedings from respondents to petitioner. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that Ext. P6 bill is only a 'provisional bill' and that the petitioner can file detailed statement of objections. It is also submitted that the matter will be finalised only after hearing the petitioner and no coercive proceedings will be taken before finalisation of the said proceedings. 3. In the above circumstance, the petitioner is permitted to file statement of objections, if any, in response to Ext.P6 bill within two weeks, on receipt of which, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed, after giving W.P.(C) No. 12918 OF 2010 3 an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month thereafter. It is also made clear that all coercive proceedings intended to be pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time as assured and undertaken from the part of the said respondents. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk