IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WA.No. 1480 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.4663/2003 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ D.VIJAYAPPA KURUP, ALUNKAL, MARARIKKULAM NORTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MAJOR SECTION, S.L.PURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, -DO- -DO- ADV.SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.A.No.1480 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the O.P. The appellant sought mandamus directing the respondents to levy electrical charges in terms of the connected load of 22 H.P from the date of granting connection up to May 2002 and thereafter levy charges at the connected load of 12 H.P. The appellant sought various other reliefs also. 2. Briefly put, the case of the appellant is as follows: 3. The appellant was running a flour mill. He was using 22 horse power motors. He filed an application in May 2002 to reduce the load to 12 H.P. According to him, though he had made repeated applications in this regard, the Electricity Board has been levying electricity charges for 22 KW. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has approached this Court. The learned Single Judge took the view that the appellant was not correct in contending that his connected load was 22 H.P. The contention W.A.No.1480 of 2009 2 of the respondents is that the authorised load of the petitioner was 22 KW. However, the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct relief by holding that the appellant's authorised load would be treated as reduced to 9.4 KW from July 2002. 4. We have heard Adv.Sri.V.Krishna Mani, the learned counsel for the appellant and Adv.Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, the learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board. 5. The short question to be decided is whether the load of the appellant which was alloted to him on his application a few decades ago, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, was 22 H.P or 22 KW. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in the statutory application forms, the load is expressed in KW and not in H.P. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that when the respondents make such a stand, it is incumbent on the respondents to rebut the matter by producing the application of the petitioner which is with them. The learned counsel for the respondent expressed his helplessness in producing the application, having regard to the passage of more than 30 years. W.A.No.1480 of 2009 3 6. In such state of affairs, we would think that we would be justified in drawing support from the admitted statutory form in this regard. The said aspect supports the respondents in this case that the load is expressed in KW or KVA and not as H.P. If that be so, we are not persuaded to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge which we confirm and consequently, this writ appeal stands dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.A.No.1480 of 2009 4 W.A.No.1480 of 2009 5 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010