IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19305 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TATA TELE SERVICES LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TOWER 1 10TH FLOOR, JEEVAN BHARATI, 124 CANNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI AND LOCAL OFFICE AT SL PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.BOBBY JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ETTUMANOOR. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,(APPELLATE AUTHORITY)ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KSEB, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE KEALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.19305 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 as confirmed in Ext.P3. 2. The petitioner is licensed by the Government of India for providing mobile cellular telephone services in Kerala. The petitioner is availing of supply of electricity from the Electrical Section of the respondent Board at Ettumanoor with consumer No.7177. They were issued Ext.P1 invoice demanding an amount of Rs.2,92,109/-, which was objected to by Ext.P2. However, the demand was confirmed by Ext.P3 mainly on the allegation that the petitioner was sharing its facility with other service providers. 3. Although, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 appeal, since they have not complied with the conditions provided under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, the appeal has not been considered. In this writ petition, the petitioner mainly relies on Ext.P5, a clarificatory order issued by the Board, which according to WP(C) No.19305/2009 -2- the petitioner permits sharing of installation subject to the conditions therein. It is stated that in the light of Ext.P5 clarification, which is subsequently issued, Exts.P1 & P3 are illegal. 4. Obviously, Ext.P5 is an order clarifying the position and if so, it should apply to the petitioner. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered. In order to enable the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter as above, Ext.P3 will stand set aside, and the 1st respondent shall, on the production of a copy of this judgment, reconsider the matter in the light of Ext.P5. 5. The petitioner states that for non-payment of the amount demanded as per Exts.P1 & P3, supply of energy to their installation has been disconnected from 01/07/2009. Now that this Court has directed reconsideration of the matter, the 1st respondent is directed that pending finalisation of the issue as above, supply of energy to Consumer NO.7177 shall be restored forthwith. The writ petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg