IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 15239 of 2004(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MAREENA THOMAS, UNNAYAPPASSERIYIL, KAINADI LANE, K.K. ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN SRI.GANGADHARA BHAT RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOTTAYAM (C). 4. THE ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOTTAYAM (C). R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 15.03.2000 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GBI/OP.NO.425/2000 OF CDRF KTM/329 DTD. 14.01.2004 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 20.03.2004 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ............................................................................... W.P.(C) No. 15239 OF 2004 ......................................................................... Dated this the 5th October , 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner started an SSI Unit in a portion of her residential house. It is stated, that she along with her sister, was running the Unit and the petitioner had applied to the Industrial Department for registration as an SSI Unit. Initially, the Industrial Department issued a certificate showing the source of power as 'non-conventional', like solar energy which was a mistake, as the Unit was run with electricity. The mistake was immediately got rectified and thereafter, the petitioner re- submitted the application with the corrected SSI certificate. However, it is stated that the respondent treated the period, viz., the date when the first application was submitted and the date of re-submission of application, as 'unauthorised' and the petitioner was treated under the commercial category; correctness of which is under challenge in this Writ Petition, particularly challenging the steps taken to disconnect the electricity supply. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this W.P.(C) No. 15239 OF 2004 2 Court on 25.05.2004, it was admitted and necessary directions were given to the respondent by way of an interim order, safeguarding the interest of both the sides, also making it clear that no disconnection shall be effected until further orders . Subsequently, the matter was placed before the 'Lok Adalat' held on 21.05.2008, when the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the representative of the K.S.E.B. were present. It was reported that there was likelihood of settlement and accordingly, the matter was adjourned. But subsequently on 06.08.2008, it was observed that the petitioner was not present and hence it was not possible to have the matter settled in his absence, whereby , it was adjourned to the next Adalat. Later, when the matter came up for consideration before the Lok Adalat on 17.07.2009, it was recorded as follows: “ Petitioner was represented by Counsel. Respondents are represented by the Assistant Executive Engineer Sri James George. On a detailed discussion, it is agreed that the grievances of the petitioner will be settled in the department Adalat, wherein the rate of interest as well as the penal charges levied on W.P.(C) No. 15239 OF 2004 3 the petitioner will be considered and the matter will be redressed. On that understanding parties agreed that this is recorded and the matter is returned to the Court”. 3. In view of the understanding/settlement arrived at between the parties as above, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case any further. The respondents shall consider the challenge against the rate of 'interest' as well as the 'penal charges' levied on the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the same shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible; at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till the matter is finally disposed of as above, status quo as on date shall be maintained. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk