IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14939 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- U.RAMANUJAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARA MANNADIAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.THANKARAJ THEATRE, KOLLAMCODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY SECRETARY, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., KOLLAMGODE BRANCH. 3. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 14939 OF 2009 (J) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of a theatre. 2. Going by the pleadings in this writ petition, on 1/8/99, a C.T. Meter was installed in the theatre and according to the petitioner bills were being issued on the basis of readings and payment was being effected. It is stated that there was an inspection by the Account Generals Team, based on which, in 2002 Ext.P2 bill was issued for short assessment, demanding a total amount of Rs.2,28,728/-. It is stated that such demand was for the period from August, 1999 to September 2002. 3. Thereupon the petitioner filed Original Petition before this Court as OP NO.5352/2003, which was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. Stay was also granted on condition that the petitioner should remit an amount of Rs.12,000/-. Accordingly, appeal was filed and finally Ext.P3 order was issued quantifying the petitioner's total liability at Rs.3,04,472/- plus interest as per rules. This order was issued on 4/7/2008. WPC 14939/09 :2 : 4. Petitioner himself says that against the original demand he had filed Arbitration OP 290/02 before District Court, Palakkad. It was therefore that Ext.P3 order got delayed till 4/7/08 for the reason that the Arbitration OP was dismissed only on 13/6/2008. In pursuance to Ext.P3, bill was issued to the petitioner on 4/7/2008. In the meanwhile, petitioner had filed a suit and that also was dismissed. Thereupon the petitioner moved the Adalat, which resulted in Ext.P6 order where though the demand for the principal amount was confirmed, his liability for interest was reduced to 6%. It was accordingly that Ext.P7 was issued on 6/4/2009 demanding Rs.3,04,472 plus 93,757/- towards interest which was levied at the rate of 6% pursuant to Ext.P6 order. It is challenging Ext.P7 this writ petition is filed. 5. In so far as the liability of the petitioner for the principal amount is concerned, I should notice that this liability stands confirmed by Ext.P5, the order passed by the respondents in the appeal filed by the petitioner. In fact, it was pursuant to Ext.P5 that Ext.P3 demand was issued after the dismissal of the Arbitration OP. Since Ext.P5 has become final, petitioner cannot now challenge the liability for the principal amount demanded. WPC 14939/09 :3 : 6. Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that for the delay in making demand, petitioner cannot be penalised by levying interest and therefore the petitioner may not be made liable for interest. As already stated, interest demanded is at the rate of 6% in pursuance to Ext.P6. In so far as the complaint of the petitioner regarding the delay is concerned, it should be stated that Ext.P5, the appellate order, was passed on 25/4/2003. That order was made subject to the outcome of the Arbitration OP that was pending before the District Court. The Arbitration OP filed by the petitioner was dismissed only on 13/6/2008. Immediately thereafter, on 4/7/2008, fresh bill was issued. This was again disputed by the petitioner before the Adalat, which passed Ext.P6 order dealing with the petitioner's complaint dated 2/1/2009. It was thereafter that by Ext.P7, demand was finally made in 6/4/2009. Thus the petitioner cannot complain that the respondents are responsible for the delay that was caused atleast subsequent to Ext.P5. 7. Considering this and also taking into account the fact that as against the regulation authorising the respondents to demand interest at far higher rate, the interest demanded is only WPC 14939/09 :4 : at 6%, I do not think this Court will be justified in interfering with the writ petition. 8. At this stage, senior counsel for the petitioner requested that he be permitted to pay the amount in instalments. 9. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondents on this request. Having regard to the submissions made, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner will be permitted to remit the amount now demanded in Ext.P7 in 4 instalments, the first of which will be payable on or before 15th of June, 2009 and the subsequent instalments before 15th of every succeeding month. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp