IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21227 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.NARASINHA PRABHU, S/O.PADMANABHA PRABHU, AGED 70 YEARS, VAIKUNT, T.D.ROAD, KOCHI 35. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL, ERNAKULAM 682011. BY SRI.SATHYANATHA MENON, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.21227/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 20.11.2010 FOR RS.3005/- EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 9.1.2011 EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.1.2011 EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8.2.2011 EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 16.3.2011 EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 16.5.2011 EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 14.7.2011 EXT.P8. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED ON 25.7.2011 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8(a). TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE BY THE RESPONDENT ON EXT.P8. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.21227 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P7 letter dated 11.7.2011 sent by the Assistant Engineer of the Electrical Section, Kerala State Electrcity Board, Ernakulam Central, to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish additional cash security of Rs.18,626/- is under challenge in this writ petition. It is contended that electricity connection was given to the petitioner only in the month of October 2010 and as the connection was given towards the second half of the financial year 2010-11 additional cash security cannot be demanded in terms of Regulation 15 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. Relying on Ext.P1 bill, which the petitioner claims was the first ever bill raised after the electricity connection was given, it is contended that the demand for additional cash security has been made following Ext.P2 bill, which reflects excessive use of electrical energy. It is stated that the meter may be faulty and that the petitioner has already asked for replacement of the meter by submitting Ext.P3 representation. W.P(C).No.21227 of 2011 -:2:- 2. Regulation 15(4) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 reads as follows:- “15(4). The Board will review the adequacy of security of all consumers in the first quarter of every financial year or when tariff revision is effected based on the average consumption of the preceding financial year and charges and tariffs in force. Based on the review, the Board will demand for shortfall or adjust the excess security in the first quarter itself as the case may be, by giving 30 days notice to the consumer.” On the terms of the aforesaid regulation, additional cash security can be demanded after review of the adequacy of security in the first quarter of every financial year or when tariff revision is effected based on the average consumption of the preceding financial year. Thus the adequacy of security is reviewed regularly in the first quarter of every financial year or as and when tariff revision is effected. The petitioner's case falls in the first category, namely, a demand for additional cash security after a review in the first quarter of the current financial year 2011-12. Therefore, the petitioner cannot attack Ext.P7 on the ground that the consumption pattern for the preceding financial year is not available in his case and the Board cannot therefore demand W.P(C).No.21227 of 2011 -:3:- additional cash security. The challenge to Ext.P7 is, according to me, without merit. By Ext.P7 bill dated 11.7.2011 the petitioner was called upon to remit the additional cash security of Rs.18,626/- on or before 10.8.2011. The said time limit will expire in another week. In such circumstances, even while dismissing the writ petition I am inclined to grant the petitioner two weeks further time from 10.8.2011 to deposit the additional cash security. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.21227 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 4th August, 2011