IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6413 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SIYAD KHAN,S/O.LATE SALIM KHAN,ANAS MANZIL,MUNDUKOTTACKAL.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP; BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TAHSILDAR(RR),PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. STATE OF KERALA,REP; BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. R2, R4 , R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. R1& R3BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 6413 of 2009-V ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 statement. Petitioner seeks a direction to drop proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 notice. Petitioner approached this court earlier and by Ext.P5 judgment petitioner was granted time to pay off the amount. Petitioner filed review petition. The review petition was filed alleging that there was final settlement on the basis of Ext.P1 (a). It is stated that taking note of the fact that the receipt was in respect of the particular demands raised, the review petition was rejected. Sri.Philip Mathews, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is a statement calling upon the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.85,056/- with interest at 24% upto May, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this is a case where there is a minimum guarantee agreement. When the connection is dismantled, petitioner cannot be called upon to pay subsequent instalment, he submits. He relies on the decision in Meledam Saw Mills vs. K.S.E.B. (1998 (2) KLT WPC No.6413/2009 -2- 227). I feel that this issue is squarely covered against the petitioner by virtue of the decision in Rajesh Vs. K.S.E.B. (2006 (1) KLT 686). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest charged is exorbitant and unconscionable. Learned standing counsel points out that interest at 24% upto November, 2008 is calculated. He further submits that the issue is actually covered by Ext.P5 judgment as after referring to the argument based on interest and noting the submission of the standing counsel that the rate of interest is one provided in the agreement, petitioner was given time to pay the amount. Of course, in Ext.P5 there is a direction to charge interest in accordance with law. The only ground taken is that the interest is exorbitant and unconscionable and cannot be justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a driver and he has financial difficulties. Considering all these aspects, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay off the amount in Ext.P7 in three equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 30.4.2009 and the further instalments on or before the 30th day of every WPC No.6413/2009 -3- succeeding month. Interest will accrue in accordance with law. If the petitioner does not pay any single instalment, he will loose the benefit of this judgment and the respondents will be free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS