IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 51 of 2009() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.19756/1998 Dated 17/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- CHIEF MANAGER, WESTFORT HOSPITAL TRICHUR - 4. BY ADV. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MUNICIPALITY OF TRICHUR TRICHUR, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION. SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.M.R.DHANIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.51 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 24th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. Appellant is the petitioner. Appellant is running a hospital. The dispute pertains to the levy of energy charges. The respondent is the licensee as far as the Municipal Corporation of Thrissur is concerned. It appears, there had been several disputes with regard to either the billing method or the amount levied in respect of the electricity consumed by the petitioner hospital. There had been several rounds of litigations in this regard. Finally these litigations were put an end to by the judgment in O.P.No.9332/98, whereby this court permitted the petitioner to pay the dues in ten instalments. There was also a direction to consider the representation with regard to the request for waiving the penal interest. It is also seen from the said judgment that the Municipality had undertaken before this court that the said issue would be considered on an appropriate representation filed by the petitioner. It is thereafter, Ext.P7 was issued, wherein it has been stated that levy of penal interest is as per the decision of the Municipal Council and hence the same WA NO.51/09 2 cannot be waived. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, and hence the appeal. 2. After having heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, we are afraid, there is no proper consideration of the grievance of the petitioner. There is no case for the respondent that the petitioner had not been paying the energy charges. Undisputed amounts were regularly paid and the issue on the disputed amounts was the subject matter of various litigations. It is in that context, in view of the dispute regarding the quantification of the energy charges, this court ascertained whether it was necessary to levy penal interest. We do not find that the respondent has considered the issue in the light of the observation made by us above, and in the light of the observations contained in the earlier judgments. It is the admitted position that the entire arrears of energy charges to the tune of Rs.29,66,125/- have been paid. Therefore, the surviving question is only with regard to penal interest. That according to us, is a matter for the Municipality to consider in the background of the regular WA NO.51/09 3 remittance of admitted energy charges by the petitioner and also the wiping off the entire arrears as on today. Therefore, we dispose of the writ appeal directing the respondent to consider afresh the liability of the appellant to pay penal interest, in the light of the observations contained in this judgment, with notice to the appellant and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. S.R.BANNURMATH, Chief Justice. KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge. tgs S.R.BANNURMATH, C. J. & KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.51 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 24th March, 2009.