IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 30841 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- R.VIKRAMAN,PROPRIETOR,BELL FOODS(MARINE DIVISION)CONSUMER NO.55620 12511, (OLD INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING COMPANY) PALLICHAL ROAD, COCHIN-682 005. BY ADV. SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 659 004. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELCTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THOPPUMPADY,KOCHI-682 006. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.30841 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 22nd November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Low Tension consumer. However, the question whether the petitioner is a Low Tension consumer under LT IV tariff or LT VIIA tariff is the subject matter of W.P.(C)No.36750 of 2009 which is now pending before this Court. This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P7 and also for a direction to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to replace the meter and also to give electric connection to consumer No.12511. Ext.P7 would reveal that an amount of Rs.24,24,161/- is demanded from the petitioner. The said demand was made under four heads. An amount of Rs.5,74,797/- has been demanded as the regular dues. Even going by Ext.P7, the amount demanded under item Nos.3 and 4 therein are under dispute and in fact, in the appeals mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3. With respect to the amount covered as per item No.2 therein the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the liability of the petitioner to remit the said amount would arise only in case the contention of the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.36750 of 2009 is rejected by this Court. In other words, the liability of the petitioner to pay the amount under item No.2 would depend WP(C).No.30841/2010 2 upon the outcome of W.P.(C)No.36750 of 2009. As already noticed, the amount covered as per item Nos.3 and 4 are under dispute. In short, according to the petitioner, at present, the petitioner is liable to pay only the amount covered as per item No.1 in Ext.P7. 2. I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned standing counsel submits that apart from the amount covered as per the regular dues under item No.1 in Ext.P7 the petitioner is liable to pay the up to date surcharge and also penal interest together with reconnection charges. The petitioner is also liable to comply with other statutory formalities for getting reconnection of the electrical connection, it is further submitted. In view of the above rival contentions, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition as hereunder:- In case the petitioner pays the regular dues of Rs.5,74,797/- shown in Ext.P7 together with the up to date surcharge, penal interest and the amount required to be deposited for reconnection of the electrical connection and complies with the other formalities required for getting reconnection, the respondents shall reconnect electrical connection to the industrial unit belonging to the WP(C).No.30841/2010 3 petitioner with Consumer No.12511 within a period of two days from the date of such remittance and compliance. It is made clear that the liability of the petitioner to pay the amount mentioned under item Nos.2, 3 and 4 will be subject to the outcome of W.P.(C)No.36750 of 2009 and the appeals mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS