IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 13392 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.T.ANTONY,AGED 43 YEARS S/O.A.V. THOMAS PROPRIETOR,M/S.LIBIA ICE,PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL SECTION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELETRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PALLURUTHY,KOCHI. 4. CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM & ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VAIDHUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN,THAANATH BUILDING,CLUB JUNCTION, POOKKATTUPADI ROAD, EDAPPALLY TOLL,KOCHI-682024. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 13392/2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR DT. 30-8-2006. EXT.P2 BILL DT. 16-9-2006. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 29-9-2006. EXT.P4 APPEAL DT. 20-11-2006. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 25-1-2007. EXT.P6 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 34171/2008 DT. 25-11-2008. EXT.P7 COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 20-4-2009. EXT.P9 NOTICE DT. 27-4-2009 [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 13392 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T As per Ext. P1 mahazar, the officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board found that the CT output connection of two phases of the petitioner's meter was inter-changed and consequently power consumption was not recorded correctly. Accordingly, by Ext. P3, the actual consumption of the petitioner was assessed and the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,24,371/-. The petitioner is challenging the demand and consequential orders passed. 2. Now, the standing counsel for the Electricity Board submits that if the petitioner files an application for one time settlement, the same would be considered in accordance with the scheme for the same. The petitioner is also agreeable for the said course of action. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 3. If the petitioner files an application for one time settlement, the same would be considered by the Electricity Board in accordance with law and orders thereon passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the application, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/