IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21852 of 2008(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- K.M.PAREETH, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMADALY, KARIMAKKATTU HOUSE, PERINGALA P.O., KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RONALD PAUL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE VADAVUKODU PUTHENCRUZE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHENCRUZE.P.O. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B DIVISION, PUTHENCRUZE, PUTHENCRUZE P.O. 682 303 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR - R1 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB – R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21852/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the main challenge is against Ext.P2 bill. The petitioner is the successful auction purchaser of the Panchayat market for the period from 1.4.2008. According to him, soon thereafter, Ext.P2 bill was served on him raising a demand of Rs.17,806/-which is much more than what is normally payable. Petitioner submits that the meter in the premises was faulty and was replaced only on 22.3.2008 and the bill in question has been issued for consumption for the six months period prior to the replacement of the meter. On this basis, it is contended that, since the demand is for the period prior to 1.4.2008, the petitioner should not be made liable for the Ext.P2 bill amount. WP(c).No.21852/2008 2 2. Now it is seen from Ext.P9 that the Panchayat had already made payment of the bill amount and this is confirmed by the Panchayat and also by the Standing Counsel for the KSEB. Therefore, what remains to be considered is whether the petitioner can be made liable for the amount due in terms of Ext.P2. 3. As the licence period of the petitioner having commenced only from 1.4.2008, his liability cannot be run for any period prior thereto. Since the bill in question has been given to the petitioner in May, 2008, what is necessary to be ascertained is whether this includes any period from 1.4.2008. This is a matter for the Electricity Board to verify and the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that if any amount is due for the period from 1.4.2008, that will be paid. Counsel for the Electricity Board agrees that the energy charges for the period from 1.4.2008 will be separately worked out and intimated to the Panchayat. It is WP(c).No.21852/2008 3 directed that once the energy charges for the period from 1.4.2008 is so intimated by the Board to the Panchayat, it will be open to the Panchayat to realise the same from the petitioner and if he does not make payment of such amount, it will be open to the Panchayat to take steps for its realisation. Needless to say that, till such a demand is raised, further proceedings if any for recovery of the amount due in terms of Ext.P2 or Ext.P9 shall not be enforced against the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.21852/2008 4