IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22791 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ALBERTIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, A UNIT OF ST.ALBERT'S COLLEGE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, REV.FR.CLEMENT VALLUVASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, CENTRAL, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM. PIN-682 018. SRI.T.R.RAJAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22791/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 16.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.BB/CL/AG AUDIT/2011-12 DATED 16/7/11 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.8.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED SHORT ASSESSMENT BILL ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED CALCULATION STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DT 16.8.11 OF THE RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22791 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P6. According to the petitioner, demand has now been belatedly raised consequent on the change of tariff from LT VIA to LT VIIA. It is stated that even if such a change of tariff is permissible, the change of tariff having been communicated only on 16/7/11, the demand now raised is illegal. 2. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondent, who contradicts the contention and according to the learned counsel for the Board, the Board is perfectly justified in demanding the amount as per Exts.P5 ad P6. 3. Irrespective of the factual contentions raised, in my view, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P6, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum in terms of Clause 37(4) of the K.S.E. Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. Therefore, since the petitioner has statutory remedy available, I do not think it necessary for this Court to resolve the controversy. In that view, I dispose of this WPC No. 22791/11 :2 : writ petition with the following directions:- (1) That it will be open to the petitioner to pursue their remedy before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum in terms of Clause 37(4) of the K.S.E. Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. (2) It is directed that if the petitioner remits 50% of the amount due under Exts.P5 and P6 within ten days from today, disconnection or any coercive action pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 will stand stayed pending decision by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum as directed above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp