IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37640 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JASMINE LIYAKATH, ZIANA ICE PLANT AND COLD STORAGE, PURAKKAD P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 37640 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 proceedings, whereby the petitioner has been required to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,750/- by way of current charges, interest etc. in respect of the Ice factory belonging to the petitioner and being operated with the consumer No.8522. 2. The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of Ext.P7 G.O. (Rt) No.64/06/PD dated 21.02.2006 issued by the Government, it was stipulated that, the minimum demand charges for the electricity will be waived for the period of closure in respect of all the closed industrial units, if such units restart their operation on or before 31.03.2006. It is stated that the petitioner has restarted the unit before the stipulated date and hence is eligible to have the benefit of Ext.P7. The position as above, was in fact brought to the notice of this Court, when the proceedings were taken by the Board for realisation of the amount, contrary to Ext.P7; which led to Ext.P5 judgment passed in WP(C) 12330/2006. With regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner challenging Ext.P10 in WP(C) 12330/2006, it was observed by the Court that, there was no challenge against the demand till Ext.P10 therein WP(C) No.37640/2009 2 was issued. Taking note of the submission made by the petitioner as to the various payments effected, after filing the said Writ Petition, this Court granted time till 30.09.2009 to pay the balance amount with interest as stated in Ext.P10 produced therein. 3. The learned Standing Counsel representing the Board submits that the petitioner has not effected the payment, despite the finalization of the Writ Petition as borne by Ext.P5; which in fact has become final. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that Ext.P8 demand issued after the judgment does not disclose the actual facts and figures including as to the period for which the amount is due; the payments effected on relevant dates; mode of the calculation of interest etc. and further that the request to furnish the particulars, particularly in view of the actual facts and figures brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P9, have not been adverted to, while proceeding with the coercive steps, which made the petitioner to approach this Court again by filing the present Writ Petition. 4. The learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no point in protracting the things by the petitioner, stating some or other lame excuse and that the matter stands already finalised by virtue of Ext.P5 judgment. However, the learned Standing Counsel further adds that a detailed statement showing the actual demand will be supplied to the WP(C) No.37640/2009 3 petitioner within one week; which is recorded and ordered accordingly. On receiving the same, the petitioner shall clear the entire liability (with accrued interest) within a further period of two weeks thereafter. Subject to the above, all coercive steps are to be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc