IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6212 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DEEPTHI INSULATED CABLES (P) LTD., AROOR, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.JIMMY JOSE. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHERTHALA. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, AROOR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 6212 OF 2009 V -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P10 and seeks to quash Exts. P7 and P10 to the extent they demand excess charges on the head of exceeding the quota. A declaration is sought about the entitlement of the petitioner to get a quota of 14815 units and a direction is sought to the third respondent to fix the base average as 10835 units provisionally. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. The petitioner was running a unit. There was a lock out in the Unit from 15.10.2005. Thereafter, the Unit re-commenced operations in April, 2008. Ext.P4 order dated 10.10.2008, in the wake of the power crisis, provided for fixation of a quota based on the average consumption for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008. Since the petitioner did not have any consumption, on the basis of the figures in the computer, average was fixed as one unit. Petitioner being WPC.6212/09 V 2 dissatisfied, approached the Executive Engineer, the agreement executing authority. Petitioner had approached this Court and this Court pronounced Ext.P6 Judgment, directing Ext.P5 representation to be considered. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the Authority. The Authority found that a revision of the quota is necessary, taking note of the facts which I have set forth earlier. On the one hand, petitioner pointed out that it is entitled to fixation of the quota on the basis of the consumption in the Unit prior to the lock out and it canvassed for the fixation of the quota in a sum of 14815 units. On the other hand, taking note of the consumption after the re-commencement of the operations in April, 2008 till September, 2008, the Officer found that the quota has to be fixed, taking the average consumption for the period from April, 2008 to September, 2008. The average consumption is stated to be 10835 units. 3. Petitioner has two complaints. In the first place, it would submit that the quota should have been fixed on the basis of the consumption pattern available for the period prior to the WPC.6212/09 V 3 lock out in the year 2005 which is on the higher side in comparison with the average consumption after re- commencement of the operations in April, 2008. The Officer found that as compared to the nil consumption for the relevant period in Ext.P4 order, the petitioner is entitled to a revision of quota based on consumption during the period in 2008. I do not see how this Court can characterize the decision by the Authority in fixing the quota with reference to the consumption pattern available in the year 2008 itself as arbitrary. I do not sit in judgment over the executive authority as an appellate authority. At any rate, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Officer is not a possible view. Petitioner stands granted considerable relief by the Officer. I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P7. 4. Petitioner invites reference to Ext.P8 to contend that even the benefit granted under Ext.P7 is not vouchsafed for the petitioner in actual practice. In other words, it is pointed out that the petitioner stands granted a quota which is lesser than WPC.6212/09 V 4 granted under Ext.P7. This is disputed by the learned standing counsel who points out that the petitioner has been granted the quota in terms of Ext.P7 from October, 2008 which is the point of time from which the quota came to be fixed. However, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P11 highlighting the complaint about not implementing Ext.P7. The only direction that is called for is, I feel, that the Authority should take a decision on the question of not enforcing Ext.P7. Accordingly, while I uphold Ext.P7, I direct the third respondent, only to look into Ext.P7 in so far as the complaint relates to not implementing Ext.P7, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge