IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25761 of 2004(P) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. SHANTHAKUMAR, S/O.DARMANDI, PROPRIETOR, R.R.RICE MILL, OOTARA, KOLLENGODE, CHOTTOR TALUK, PALAKAD. 2. PUSHPANGATHAN.V.R., S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 43, RESIDING AT VADAKKEVEEDU, VARODE POST, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.K.K.RATNALATHA SMT.K.A.CIJILA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APTS), VYDHYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF AGREEMENT DT 2.5.02 P2 COPY OF MAHAZAR DT 18.11.03 P3 COPY OF INVOICE DT 24.11.03 P4 COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 17.12.03. P5 COPY OF RECEIPT DT 18.12.03. P5(A) COPY OF RECEIPT DT 21.1.04. P6 COPY OF APPEAL DT 22.12.03. P6(A) COPY OF COMMUNICATION. P7 COPY OF ORDER DT 11.8.04. P8 COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT 9.9.1968. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF NOTICE DT 24.11.03. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 25761 OF 2004 P ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 is the mahazar prepared in which it is found that two phases are not working. On the strength of the same, Ext.P3 bill is issued. The petitioners preferred an appeal which culminated in Ext.P7 appellate order. The petitioners challenge Exts.P2, P3 and P7 and seek a direction to refund the amount remitted by the petitioners towards Ext.P3. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel. It is common case that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court reported in Nirmala Metal Industries Vs. KSEB [2006 (3) KLT 465]. In such circumstances, Exts.P2, P3 and P7 will not legally stand. Accordingly, Exts.P3 and P7 are quashed. The amount paid by the petitioners as per the interim order will be adjusted against future demands to be met by the petitioners. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks