IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 OP.No. 24700 of 2001(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KERALA RUBBER AND RECLAIMS LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT WITH REGISTERED OFFICE AT CARMEL BUILDINGS, BENERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SABINA ABRAHAM. BY ADVS. MR.B.N. SHIV SHANKAR, MR.BIJU ABRAHAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM PALACE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL TARIFF), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, S.C, K.S.E.B. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 24700/2001-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED TO R.1. BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MAJOR SECTION, THRIKKAKARA DTD. 22/07/99. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 02/06/99. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/05/2000. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12/08/2000. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/10/2000. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL DTD. 15/01/2000. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/06/01. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DTD. 12/07/01. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------- O.P No.24700 of 2001 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this original petition entered into a minimum guarantee agreement with the Kerala State Electricity Board as per which monthly minimum guarantee amount was payable by the petitioner. Petitioner's establishment was closed on account of lock out as a result of labour unrest. The petitioner claimed rebate in payment of minimum guarantee agreement after intimation of the lock out to the respondents. Despite the same, petitioner's claim for rebate on the minimum guarantee agreement was rejected by Exts.P7 and P8 on the ground that the petitioner did not resume production in the company after the lock out, in which event only the rebate is allowable. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the rebate because the lock out was after due intimation to the respondents and inspection by the officers of the Electricity Board, who submitted Ext.P1 report in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner therefore, seeks the following reliefs. O.P No.24700 of 2001 2 "1. To issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, or order to quash Exts.P7 and P8; 2. To pass a writ of mandamus directing to respondents not to initiate any further action upon Ext.P7 including the Recovery actions initiated by Ext.P8." 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents disputing the claim of the petitioner. According to them, rebate is allowable only if after the lock out, the petitioner resumes operation of their establishment which they have not. 3. Petitioner does not now dispute the fact that for becoming eligible for rebate on account of the lock out, petitioner should have resumed production after the lock out period. They also do not dispute the fact that they have not resumed production after the lock out period. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to the rebate on the minimum guarantee agreement for the period of lock out as claimed by them. 4. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest due on the amount may be waived and the petitioner may be allowed to pay the amount due in instalments. As far as the waiver of O.P No.24700 of 2001 3 interest is concerned since interest is statutorily payable, I do not think that it is proper on the part of this Court to waive interest payable by a defaulter of payment of electricity charges. That being so, I am not inclined to allow waiver of interest. However, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay the balance amount due after adjusting the amount already paid by the petitioner, in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1.2.2010. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on the due dates without any default, coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance. If there is default in payment of any one instalment, it would be open to the respondents to take such coercive steps for recovery of the amount due in a lump sum as warranted by law, without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. . The Original Petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ma O.P No.24700 of 2001 4 O.P No.24700 of 2001 5