IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20531 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- INDIA TELECOM INFRA LTD.NO.42/1327(1), 2ND FLOOR,V.S.ARCADE,POWER HOUSE ROAD, OPP.POWER HOUSE,KACHERIPADI, COCHIN 682 018,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON BOBY SEBASTIAN,CIRCLE HEAD. BY ADV. MR. P.SATHISAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,BOARD SECRETARIAT, VYDHYUTHIBHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION, VILAKUDY,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL MR. P.P. THAJUDEEN, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20531 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of Ext.P3 objection preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P3 demand notice within a time frame. 2. The petitioner is stated as a consumer of the respondent Board having connection under LT VII A category and that exorbitant amounts have been sought to be realized from the petitioner by issuing Ext. P2, which hence is objected by the petitioner, by filing Ext.P3. 3. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that, Ext. P2 is a 'provisional bill' dated 8.3.2010, and absolutely no objection whatsoever was filed by the petitioner in response to this, for quite a long time. Thereafter, the concerned Assistant Engineer gave further notice on 11.6.2010 by registered post, directing the petitioner to submit his objections if any, within 7 days. Still there was no response. On pursuing further steps for realization of the due amount, the petitioner has now approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition, producing Ext. P3 as the statement of objection filed by the petitioner on 15.5.2010. The learned standing counsel submits that, no such W.P. (C) No. 20531 of 2010 : 2 : objection has ever been received by the concerned Assistant Engineer and that it is produced only to mould the case of the petitioner in the Writ Petition. 4. After hearing the rival submissions, the second respondent is directed to treat Ext.P3 produced along with this Writ Petition as the 'objection' filed by the petitioner in response to Ext. P2 provisional bill and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 5. The coercive proceedings including disconnection of the power supply, shall be kept in abeyance till such time, on condition that the petitioner deposits the entire amount covered by Ext. P2, within two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd