IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15203 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JASMINE LIYAKATH, ZIANA ICE PLANT AND COLD STORAGE, PURAKKAD P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. G.HARIHARAN MR. PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KSEB, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, AMBALAPPUZHA. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR. P.P. THAJUDHEEN, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15203 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i. Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to restore power supply relating to consumer No. 8522 of Ambalappuzha Section pending disposal of the revision petition viz. Ext. P4 pending before the 3rd respondent. ii. Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the 3rd respondent to consider and take decision on Ext. P4 revision petition filed by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner and affording her with an opportunity of being heard. And iii. To pass such other orders or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P2 order has been passed by the concerned respondent without proper application of mind and not in conformity with the directions issued by this Court as per Ext. P1 judgment. Hence it is under challenge. It is also stated that, petitioner has already filed Ext.P4 revision petition before the Deputy Chief Engineer who is the 3rd respondent herein and seeks for appropriate direction to have the same considered and dealt with in accordance with law simultaneously seeking to have the W.P. (C) No. 15203 of 2010 : 2 : restoration of electric connection forthwith. 3. The learned standing counsel submits that, there is absolutely no bonafides in the contentions raised by the petitioner. While disposing of W.P.(C) 3518 of 2010 (Ext.P1), the petitioner was directed to deposit a portion of liability and to have the matter finalized by the 1st respondent therein, in accordance with law. The matter was considered accordingly by the Authority, who passed Ext.P2 order, wherein the actual facts and figures have been specifically given. A detailed statement is also annexed to Ext.P2 with regard to the amount actually due and the amount actually paid by the petitioner, showing the balance. This being the position, no interference is warranted, submits the learned standing counsel. 4. During the course of hearing, it is brought out that, Ext.P4 revision petition is not maintainable, as there is no provision to entertain such revision, which on the other hand, can be regarded as a complaint under Regulation 37 of the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code, and so as to have the same considered and decided, it is very much essential that the petitioner has to satisfy the conditions stipulated. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court directs to treat Ext.P4 as a complaint under Regulation 37, subject to the condition that the petitioner satisfies the amount payable for availing the said benefit. Once the amount is cleared by the petitioner, the electricity connection W.P. (C) No. 15203 of 2010 : 3 : shall restored to the petitioner forthwith and the 3rd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 , after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, treating it as a complaint filed under Regulation 37. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd