IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14233 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ TAMAR INDIA SPICES PVT.LTD., VARAPETTY, KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.K.ASHRAF, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.M.H.KADER. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICITY HOUSE, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION - II, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. ASSISANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION - II, MUVATTUPUZHA. SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 14233 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a small scale industrial unit engaged in manufacturing spices and curry powders. According to the petitioner, they started the unit in 2006 and Ext.P1 is the minimum guarantee agreement. Petitioner admits that in June, 2008, the meter became defective and it was replaced only in November, 2008. It is stated that around November, 2008, on account of certain orders they received, the company started night shift resulting in gradual increase of energy consumption. Petitioner submits that after a lot of persuasion, the meter was replaced in November and thereafter the Board reassessed the consumption as provided in the Act and the Rules and issued Ext.P10 adopting the average for the three months period subsequent to November, 2008. Objecting to the demand, the petitioner filed Ext.P11 before the 3rd respondent. In this writ petition what they complain is that without dealing with the objections raised by them, the respondents are demanding for payment of the amount demanded in Ext.P10. WPC 14233/09 :2 : 2. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in terms of Regulation 37 framed by the Board, the petitioner ought to have approached the Executive Engineer and not the Assistant Engineer, before whom Ext.P11 was filed. Having regard to the provisions contained in Regulation 37 relied on by the learned standing counsel, I must accept his contention. 3. In the light of the fact that the objection filed by the petitioner is before the Assistant Engineer, an incompetent authority, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. 4. That it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Executive Engineer, the authority competent under Regulation 37, by filing objections against Ext.P10, the bill issued by the respondents. It is directed that if such an objection is filed within 10 days from today, the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Muvattupuzha shall consider the objections with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in this matter. 5. In the meantime, it is directed that on the petitioner remitting 50% of the amount due under Ext.P10 within 2 weeks from today, further coercive action based on Ext.P10 shall be kept WPC 14233/09 :3 : in abeyance pending decision by the Executive Engineer as directed above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Executive Engineer, Muvattupuzha for compliance along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp