IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3642 of 2010(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOSEPH M.KALLYVAYALIL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, GLENROCK RUBBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., MALLIKASSERY P.O., PAIKA-686577. BY ADVS.MR.KKM.SHERIF MR.LAL K.JOSEPH MR.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN MR.V.R.REKESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR ELECTRICITY, THANATH BUILDING, CLUB JUNCTION, POOKATTUPADY ROAD, EDAPPALLY TOLL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, POWER HOUSE ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALA. 5. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1,3 TO 5 ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 3642 of 2010-E ---------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents nos.1,4 and 5 to implement the Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent Ombudsman and grant all the benefits granted therein within time frame, which this Honourable Court may deem fit. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directing the respondents No.1, 4 and 5 to revise the monthly bills issued to the petitioner during the power cut period, during the years 2008-2009 and 2009- 2010 as directed by the 2nd respondent Ombudsman and also directing the above respondents 1, 4 and 5 to refund the excess amount remitted by the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, iii) pass such other order which this Honourable Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite passing Ext.P5 order by the second respondent Ombudsman, way back on 21.8.2009, the benefit granted in favour of the petitioner is still to be implemented by the respondent and hence the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 3642 of 2010-E 2 this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that the respondents have taken a decision in the first week of January 2010 to challenge Ext.P5 by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. This Court does not find any justification for not implementing Ext.P5, particularly when the respondents have admittedly not pursued any effective remedy against Ext.P5, if they are actually aggrieved of, in any manner. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the concerned respondents under the Board are directed to implement Ext.P5 forthwith, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It also made clear that, this however will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to pursue appropriate steps against Ext.P5, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab