IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH APRIL 2009 / 4TH VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12752 of 2009(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K.R.BHARATHAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALUMMEL ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THOPPUMPADY ELECTTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B., THOPPUMPADY. ADV. SRI. P.P. THAJUDHEEN, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12752 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a consumer of the Kerala State Electricity Board with consumer No.5562016847 given to his building and the category of connection come under LT 1 (a) tariff. According to the petitioner, the said building is occupied by the tenant as per Ext.P1 agreement and he is remitting an average bill amount of Rs.645/- with respect to the said building and the consumption of electricity is below 250 units. Ext.P2, bill dated 16.01.2009, show the average consumption of electricity. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P3 bill, the Board demanded an amount of Rs.12,825/-, which is exorbitant and no electricity power has consumed so as to pay such a huge amount. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 bill, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent. The petitioner apprehends that without considering Ext.P4 representation, the Board would take arbitrary steps. W.P.(C) No.12752 of 2009 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to consider Ext.P4. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take up Ext.P4 representation and dispose of the same after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, which will be produced by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE pac