IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22325 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOLLY JOHN, PULIKKAL BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, APTS, ROOM NO.444, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, COLLEGE CLUB ROAD, KOCHI-11. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.22325 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner's husband was the owner of a four storied building at M.G.Road, Ernakulam and in the third floor of which he was living with his family. He died on 28.6.2007. 3. It is stated that during his life time, on 18.3.2004, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the premises and found unauthorized additional load. Demand made on that basis was the subject matter of WP(c). No.9299/05, which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment. When the writ petition was pending, pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, it would appear that, to secure the dues to the Board, the petitioner's husband was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1 lakh and furnish bank guarantee for Rs.42,000/-. It is stated that in WP(c).No.22325/09 2 compliance thereof, amount was deposited and Bank guarantee was furnished which was renewed and was valid till 18.4.2009. However, as in the meanwhile the consumer expired, the matter was not pursued. 4. During the life time of the consumer, there was another inspection of the premises on 3.5.2006 and that was the subject matter of WP(c).No.14335/06. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing the consumer to file objections. It is stated that this was also not pursued. 5. Long after the expiry of the consumer, the petitioner has now been served with Ext.P1 demand issued on 22.7.2009 calling upon the petitioner to remit Rs.1,24,676/- which consists of the balance amount due following the inspections mentioned above and the surcharge thereon. It is challenging Ext.P1 that this writ petition is filed. 6. Presently, since the petitioner did not pursue the matter following the directions issued by this court in Exts.P3 and P5 judgments, the respondents cannot be faulted for the demand made. Therefore the only course now available to the petitioner is to pursue the matter following Exts.P3 and P5 WP(c).No.22325/09 3 judgments referred above. 7. Having regard to the fact that the matter was not pursued as on account of the illness and eventual death of the petitioner's husband, it is appropriate that the petitioner be permitted to purse the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that, within 2 weeks from today, if the petitioner files appeal as directed in Exts.P3 judgment and objections as directed in P5 judgment, the respective authorities concerned shall entertain the appeal and objections. However before the appeal is filed, the petitioner shall keep the bank guarantee which was furnished and expired on 18.4.2009 renewed and also remit 50% of the amount due under Ext.P1. Subject to renewal of Bank guarantee and deposit made as above, the power supply to the premises in question shall not be disconnected until proceedings are finalized. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.22325/09 4