IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 38765 of 2002(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. S.R. ELECTRO PRODUCT (P) LTD., NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.SHAMIER MARICKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHY BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & 2 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1-2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 38765/2002. ------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT. 30-12-2002. EXT.P2 DEMAND NOTICE DT. 5-12-2002. EXT.P3 REPRESENTATION DT. 10-12-2002. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 38765 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 11th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a company and a high tension consumer of electricity supplied by the Kerala State Electricity Board. They entered into a minimum guarantee agreement with the Kerala State Electricity Board, as per which the petitioner was liable to pay the minimum electricity charges guaranteed by the petitioner irrespective of whether the petitioner has used electricity or not. According to the petitioner, on account of breakdown of machinery, the petitioner could not consume electricity, for which period the petitioner is entitled to waiver of payment of minimum guarantee amount as per clause 17 of the minimum guarantee agreement. The petitioner submits that the same has not been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(1) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P3 expeditiously after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (2) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant reduction in the minimum demand charges as contemplated under Clause 17 of the High Tension Agreement. (3) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate coercive steps including disconnection for recovering the amounts under Ext. P2 pending disposal of Ext. P3 representation .” 2. Clause 17 quoted by the petitioner reads as follows: “If at any time the consumer is prevented from receiving or using the electrical energy to be supplied under this agreement either in whole or in part owing to any strike, riots, insurrection, command of a civil or or military authority, fire explosives, act of God or any other cause reasonably beyond control or if the board is prevented from supply or unable to supply such electrical energy owing to all or any of the causes mentioned above, then the minimum charge or the minimum guarantee payable by the O.P.. No. 38765/2002. -: 2 :- consumer for each month in which the consumer or the board is so prevented shall be reduced for the time being in proportion to the ability of the consumer to take or the board to supply such power, the ability being reckoned proportional to the energy consumer during the month in question in relation to the average consumption for six normal months immediately preceding the said period.” The petitioner is relying on that clause for the benefits sought for in the original petition. But, at the same time, the petitioner admits that it is on account of the breakdown of a transformer, the petitioner could not consume electricity. For breakdown of machinery, what is applicable is not clause 17. Clause 17 is applicable only when the Electricity Board is not in a position to supply electrical energy. The petitioner's case is not covered by the same. The learned counsel for the Electricity Board submits that even for applying clause 16(b), which is the clause applicable for waiver of minimum guarantee amount, the petitioner has to resume consumption of electricity after repairing the machinery, which the petitioner has not done. 3. In O.PNo. 18602/2002, I had held that for applying clause 16 (b), the consumer has to resume consumption of energy as soon he reasonably can after the machinery is repaired. Since the petitioner has not resumed consumption of the electrical energy as admittedly the petitioner had closed down the industry, the benefit under clause 16(b) is also not available to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/