IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35169 of 2008(J) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M. ABDUL HAMEED, S/O. HASSAN, AGED 56 YEARS, EKKAT HOUSE, KUZHIMANA, MUTHANNOOR, THRIPPANACHI.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, MANJERI. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB SECTION, KIZHISSERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 35169 OF 2008 J -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 is an additional Bill and Ext.P2 is the notice. 2. Petitioner is a consumer running a rice mill. It is stated that he is burdened with additional consumption charge and it is further stated that on enquiry, by orders consumers are ordered to restrict the consumption to eighty per cent of the average of the previous year's consumption. The consumer will have to pay enhanced rate of power charges over and above the quota fixed. It is stated that for the month of October, 2008 the energy consumed by the unit is 460 units and that 80% of the same would be 368 units, and that the quota allotted to the petitioner at 214 units, is arbitrary and illegal. Ext.P2 is stated to be a Circular fixing the quota at 214 units. This is done apparently on the basis of the consumption pattern of 2007 - 2008. Complaint of the petitioner is based on 214 units, primarily WPC.35169/08 J 2 based on the consumption for the year 2008. Thereafter, it is also stated, of course, that the quota is not at all 80 per cent of the average consumption for 2007 - 2008. Petitioner has not produced any bills as such. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the quota fixed in Ext.P2, he may have to work out his remedies elsewhere. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere in this Writ Petition and it is dismissed without prejudice to any other remedies the petitioner has in law. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge