IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 22952 of 2010(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHAIK MOHAMMED, S/O.ABDUL MUTHALIFF, KPCA ESTATE, MATTUTHAVALAM, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI, (CONSUMER NO.18659). BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE, SMT.V.H.JASMINE. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.M. MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.22952 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 20th September, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P3 demand notice issued by the second respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that the electric connection in question is an agricultural electric connection and therefore the petitioner is entitled to pay the amount through the third respondent. However, according to respondents 1 and 2, the third respondent would pay only an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the minimum guarantee amount and any amount in excess has to be paid by the petitioner himself. I do not think it necessary to go into the merits of those contentions especially in view of the specific statement in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit as hereunder: “4. It is respectfully submitted that by a mistake the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Nedumkandam issued a current charge arrear bill of Rs.639/- for the period 6/2009 to 4/2010. In the revised bill as per the order of the Consumer's Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki the current charge for the entire period is on account of Krishibhavan only.” Thus, it is obvious that even according to respondents 1 and 2 Ext.P3 has been issued by mistake. If that be so, Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. WP(C).No.22952/2010 2 Therefore, Ext.P3 is set aside. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS