IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17236 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ N.A.MUHAMMEDKUNHI BANGARKUNNU, NELLIKKUNNU KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTTRICITY BAORD, REP. BY THE SECRETARY ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL SECTION, NELLIKUNNU, KASARAGOD. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KASARAGOD. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17236 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is availing of supply for agricultural purpose in Consumer No.5461. He is also availing of supply for domestic purpose in Consumer No.6793. There was an APTS inspection and on finding that he was meeting his domestic requirements from Consumer NO.5461, he was issued Ext.P1, a provisional bill demanding Rs.25,859/-. On its receipt, petitioner filed Ext.P1(a) objection, but however, his objection was overruled and Ext.P2 order was passed confirming Ext.P1 bill. An appeal was filed by the petitioner and that was rejected by Ext.P3 and following Ext.P3, he is issued Ext.P4 demand. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings, the writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of Exts.P2 and P3 orders passed by the respondents itself show that there was diversion of power supplied for agricultural purpose at a lower tariff for domestic purposes. This factual aspect has been appreciated and has been found against concurrently by the respective authorities. 3. In this writ petition, I do not find any material to WPC 17236/09 :2 : conclude that the aforesaid finding of fact arrived at by the authorities is perverse warranting interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts pleaded, it is directed that if the petitioner pays the amount demanded in Ext.P4 in three equal monthly instalments along with the energy charges, further coercive action for its recovery will stand deferred. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp