IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 30847 of 2008(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.P. ABOOBACKER, AGED 59, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, K.P. OIL MILLS, P.O. PONNANI SOUTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679583. BY ADV.MR.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUB ENGINEER (IN CHARGE OF A.E), ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E BOARD, PONNANI.P.O, PONNANI SOUTH. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E BOARD, PONNANI.P.O, PONNANI SOUTH. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.30847/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE BY THE IST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.30847 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 notices issued by the respondent Board calling upon the petitioner to make additional cash deposit. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is an LT IV consumer with consumer Nos.61 & 62. The petitioner had made security deposit of Rs.28,672/- and Rs.15,786/- for the aforesaid two consumer numbers. By Ext.P1 notices referred to above, he has been called upon to make additional cash deposit of Rs.29,874/- and Rs.15,285/- for consumer Nos.61 & 62 respectively. These notices are dated 24/09/2008. On its receipt, this writ petition has been filed challenging the same. 3. The contention raised in the writ petition is that if at all, additional cash deposit can be demanded only in the first quarter of the financial year. It is also contended that the same has to be worked out on the basis of preceding two months' bill amounts. WP(C) No.30847/2008 -2- 4. Having considered this issue, I feel, the matter is covered by Clause 15 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 framed by the respondent Board. In terms of Clause 15, any person, who requires supply of electricity to his premises shall have to provide security for payment of money due to the Board in respect of electricity supplied to such person. Clause 15(4) being relevant reads as under:- “Clause 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.” A reading of this provision shows that the Board is entitled to review the adequacy of security of all consumers in the first quarter of every financial year, and based on the review, demand remittance of the short fall in the first quarter itself. Ext.P1 demands were made only on 24/09/2008. If that be so, the demand has not been made in the first quarter of the financial year. In that respect Ext.P1 is belated and cannot be enforced. WP(C) No.30847/2008 -3- 5. However, the other contention raised by the petitioner that the demand has to be made based on two months' average consumption, does not seem to be of supported by any Clause in the Terms and Conditions of Supply. 6. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand disposed of quashing Ext.P1 as belated, and leaving it open to the Board to demand additional cash security, if any due, in the manner as provided in Clause 15 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg