IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 22794 of 2006(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. MANUEL, S/O. MACHAEL, KANNACHAMURI, MUNDEMVELI P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SRI.C.S.SAJIN SMT.V.T.LITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, FORT KOCHI. ADV. SRI.P.P. THAJUDHEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).22794/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.2.5.06 ISSUED BY R2 EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF BILL DT.24.5.06 ISSUED BY R2 EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DT.1.7.06 SUBMITTED TO R2 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.22794 OF 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is a consumer of Electrical energy provided at a shop room owned by him, which according to him was kept vacant as unoccupied from the year 1989 onwards. Notwithstanding such non-use, Exts.P1 and P2 notices were issued to him demanding payment of charges for the period from 5/1994 to 11/2001, amounting to Rs.47,071/- along with surcharge to the tune of Rs.1,29,133/-. The petitioner thereupon caused Ext.P3 lawyer notice to the 2nd respondent disputing the liability. But the 2nd respondent had never responded to the said notice. Apprehending further action for recovery, the petitioner had approached this Court in this writ petition. 2. The 2nd respondent in his statement admits that the electric connection in question was disconnected on 8.5.2001 and subsequently dismantled on 23.11.2001. According to him the charges demanded pertains to the period upto the date of dismantling. Eventhough computation of the amounts is incorporated in the statement, the split up details corresponding to the respective due dates of liability is not discernable. It is W.P.(C).22794/06 2 mentioned in the statement that after receipt of Ext.P3 notice no further action is taken in the matter, and the petitioner will be heard based on Ext.P3 before passing final order and before pursuing further action. But nothing transpired thereafter, presumably due to pendency of this writ petition. However, the above undertaking is recorded. 3. Under the above circumstances the 2nd respondent is directed to issue detailed calculation statement containing the split-ups to the petitioner with respect to the arrears due, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such split-up statement the petitioner is at liberty to file detailed objections before the 2nd respondent within two weeks thereafter. The 2nd respondent will finalise the demand on the basis of the objections if any filed, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to workout his remedies available under the statute, if he has got any grievance against such decision of the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb