IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23512 of 2010(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M/S.SOUTH MALABAR STEELS & ALLOYS (P)LTD., MANJALUNGAL, KALADIPATTA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, V.ALAVI. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KSEB, SHORNUR-679 121. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KSEB, SHORNUR-679 121. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, PATTAMBI-679 303. 5. THE SPECIAL OFFICR (REVENUE) K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 6. MEMBER (DISTRIBUTION) K.S.E.B. VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY THE FOLLOWING: SVS. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 23512 of 2010-L ---------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to have additional power allocation to the extent of 2000 KVA, as requested in Ext.P5 application and to direct the respondent to grant additional power allocation as requested in Exts.P1, P2 and P5. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, absolutely no amount is liable to be paid by the petitioner and the non-consideration of the request made by the petitioner is with reference to the certain amounts, allegedly due under different bills; the correctness and sustainability of which have already been challenged by filing W.P(C) Nos.30144 of 2005 and 31597 of 2005, wherein interim stay has been granted by this Court. As such, the amounts covered by the interim order of stay granted in the said two cases are not liable to the termed as arrears to be cleared by the petitioner as on date and hence, there is no rationale in not considering the request made by the petitioner for granting W.P(C) No. 23512 of 2010-L 2 additional power allocation. The learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner is prepared to satisfy if any other amount is due to be satisfied, so as to consider and grant the relief sought for. 3. Heard the learned standing counsel as well, who submits with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit that the total outstanding arrears was Rs.36,21,800/- and that the balance penal bill is Rs.16,61,813/-. It is also stated in para 5 of the counter affidavit that, if the petitioner is ready to remit the arrears and the OYEC charges, the respondents are ready to act for allotting the additional power to the petitioner and that there is absolutely no lapse or delay on the part of the respondents in this regard. 4. The factual position with reference to the contents of Ext.P9 was further explained by the petitioner by submitting Ext.P10; on receipt of which, Ext.P11 letter was issued by the Board stating that the petitioner is to clear a sum of Rs.16,61,813/- as the outstanding liability. The factual position is that the recovery of the said amount stands stayed by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 23.1.2006 in the concerned Writ Petition, which is also specifically conceded in Ext.P11. It is without any regard to the said W.P(C) No. 23512 of 2010-L 3 position, that further demand was made as per Ext.P12 insisting that the petitioner will have to satisfy the said liability as well, so as to have the benefit of additional power allocation. With regard to the similar issue as involved in the present case, particularly as to whether the amount, which has already been stayed by this Court, could be insisted to be satisfied for providing the relief sought for, had already come up for consideration before this Court and by turning down the contention raised by the respondents, relief has already been granted in different cases including in W.P.(C) No.14917 of 2006. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is also ready to make an undertaking that the property concerned will not be transferred or alienated till the cases referred in Ext.P9 are finally disposed of; which submission is recorded. 6. In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner made in Ext.P1 application to provide additional power allocation and the service connection at the earliest, on satisfaction of the statutory requirements and the amounts due if any, other than the amount stipulated in Ext.P9. W.P(C) No. 23512 of 2010-L 4 The proceedings in this regard shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No. 23512 of 2010-L 5