IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22399 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THOMAS MATHEW MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.E.AGRO PRODUCTS ARPOOKARA I(CONSUMER NO. 10518 LT IV AYAMANAM ELECTRICAL SECTION) BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM 3. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYAM. 4. ASST.ENGINEER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, AYMANAM, KOTTAYAM 5. CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VUDYUTHY BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 22399 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB. The petitioner is the Managing Director of one K.E. Agro Products which has existing power allocation of 130 H.P. He has sought for an additional power allocation. It was rejected under Ext.P2 order. The petitioner approached before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which as per Ext.P3 order held that the petitioner was denied sanction for availing additional power due to inordinate delay caused by the Board authorities in sanctioning the additional load. Therefore there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Board authorities. Nevertheless the petitioner was directed to approach the Board authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 before the Chairman of the Board but it was not considered by the Board as such. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent to place Ext.P6 before the Board within one WPC. 22399/2008 2 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereupon the Board shall take a decision afresh within two months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC. 22399/2008 3