IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16140 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. CUSTOMER LINE PRIVATE LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2A LINK HEIGHTS PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-680036, AND OPERATING FROM 2ND FLOOR CHOICE TOWERS S.A.ROAD, KOCHI-682016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJESH VENUGOPAL. BY ADV. SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, GIRI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. **3. CHAIRMAN, CGRF, ERNAKULAM ** SUO-MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 26.05.2010. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16140 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash Exts.P6 and P8; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Asst. Engineer to take a decision on Ext.P7 and P9; (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to take any steps to recover amounts covered by the impugned bills at the LT 7 tariff, nor to disconnect the connection provided to the petitioner's premises for non payment of bills under the impugned bills; (iv) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to be treated as a call centre and therefore not liable to pay electricity tariff under LT 7 A. (v) Grant such other reliefs as are just and proper in the nature of this case. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner is very much having an effective alternate remedy, if aggrieved in any manner, by approaching the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and hence that the Writ Petition is not maintainable at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to avail the statutory remedy, but was constrained to 2 WP(C) No. 16140/2010 approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition because of the coercive steps stated as being pursued by the respondent, causing disconnection of electric supply. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to avail the statutory remedy by filing necessary proceedings before the Chairman, CGRF, Ernakulam, against the impugned bills. If any such proceedings are filed within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks thereafter. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, the respondents are directed not to disconnect the electric supply in respect of the present cause of action, for a period of one month and it will be subject to the orders to be passed by the CGRF, Ernakulam. The Chairman CGRF, Ernakulam is 'suo-motu' impleaded as the additional 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition and the learned standing counsel entered appearance on the said additional respondent as well. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc