IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20548 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ N.GOPALA PILLAI, AGED 74 YEARS,S/O.NARAYANAN PILLAI, SOORANDU NORTH P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT,KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST,SOORANADU, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHOOR TALUK,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY SECRETARY,VYDUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION,PAYYANNOOR, KANNOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB,MADHAMANGALAM. 4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL SECTION,KSEB,MATHAMANGALAM. 5. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,MATHAMANGALAM. 6. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,SREEKANDAPURAM. 7. CHAIRPERSON,CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, POWER HOUSE BUILDING,GANDHI ROAD,CALICUT. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20548 OF 2009 (K) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a trust running an educational institution. 2. According to the petitioner, there was an inspection in their premises in July 2007 and that on the basis that there was unauthorised extension of supply of power, Ext.P1 notice was issued requiring them to remove the unauthorised extension. 3. That was followed by an inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad held in February, 2008 when it was found that unauthorised extension of power was taken to the College building. It is stated that subsequently they were issued Ext.P2 calling upon the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.1,26,000, which was challenged before this Court in WP(C) NO.7937/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment with a direction that there shall not be any disconnection on account of the impugned bills, provided the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.40,000/- and with a further condition that the alleged unauthorised extension was no more put to use. It is stated that accordingly, petitioner WPC 20548/09 :2 : filed objections and that were rejected. The appeal was also rejected. 4. Now the petitioner is issued Ext.P8 demanding payment of the balance amount and challenging the said demand, this writ petition is filed. 5. Going by the materials produced by the petitioner, it can be seen that the supply of power which is availed of by the petitioner was unauthorisedly extended to the building where the educational institution is housed. This has been confirmed in the APTS inspection and in Exts.P5 and P7 orders, rejecting the representations of the petitioner. If that be so, on the materials, the conclusion arrived at by the authorities that there was unauthorised extension of power supply cannot be faulted. Consequently, Exts. P2 and P8 notices demanding balance amount due from the petitioner also cannot be faulted. Therefore, the prayers in this behalf sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. 6. However, if the petitioner pays amount due under Ext.P8, it is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to apply for fresh power connection to their premises, in which event, subject to the satisfaction of the other conditions prescribed by the Board in this WPC 20548/09 :3 : behalf, it is directed that the respondents shall consider the same and pass orders thereon. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp