IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 29477 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- FOCUS MOTORS, WORKSHOP 12/73, MANIPUZHA, NATTAKAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BENZ AUTOMOBILES) REP.BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER CENSON, AGED 40 YEARS, 24/503, SAUMIYA, MADATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SECTION, NATTAKAM, KOTTAYAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PALLAM. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.29477 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P9 and P9(a). Ext.P9(a) is a bill issued calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,33,825/-. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner having entered into a lease agreement with one Sri.Sukumaran Nair started a vehicle service station by name Benz Automobiles, Nattakom during the year 1999. According to petitioner, it submitted an application seeking transfer of ownership in favour of the petitioner. There was an inspection on 28.5.2002. It was found that the connection was given under LT IV, but it was billed under LT VIIA. Petitioner was served with a demand for payment of an amount of Rs.3,81,413/- being the penalty as evident from Ext.P2. By Ext.P4 order, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam cancelled the penal bill and further clarified that respondents are free to issue adjustment bill. Ext.P5 shows that the appellate authority did not interfere with Ext.P4. The contention is that there is no authority to issue Ext.P9 in the light of the facts and contrary to Regulation 42(d) of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. WPC. 29477/2008. 2 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that actually there is no penal element in Ext.P9 and Ext.P9 is issued in terms of Ext.P4 and that it is only an adjustment bill. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that Ext.P6 was issued pointing out that the connection stood in the name of Sri.Sukumaran Nair and that the petitioner must apply for transfer of ownership to be intimated within seven days and must apply for transfer of ownership of service connection within fifteen days and execute a fresh agreement and the petitioner was called upon to do so within fifteen days of the receipt of the letter. According to the petitioner, petitioner sent Ext.P7. In Ext.P7 it is stated that there is change in the name, but the management and address remains the same. In Ext.P7 the petitioner requested that if there is any further procedures to be followed to effect the change in the records, they may be informed. 4. According to the learned Standing Counsel, it is because of the fact that petitioner did not apply for change of ownership that the connection came to be disconnected. WPC. 29477/2008. 3 5. As far as the challenge to Ext.P9 is concerned, in Ext.P9 it is categorically stated that it is issued in terms of Ext.P4 order, as per which adjustment bill could be issued under LT VII A. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Krishna Kumar does not dispute in the course of the argument that the demand raised in Ext.P9 is in terms of Ext.P4 and not in violation of Ext.P4. He is not able to substantiate as to how Ext.P9 cannot be treated as an adjustment bill in keeping with Ext.P4. It is therefore clear that the challenge to Ext.P9 and Ext.P9(a) are only to be repelled. I do so. 7. As far as disconnection is concerned, as pointed out, it was on the ground that there is no change of ownership applied for. Learned Standing Counsel points out that if the petitioner applies for change of ownership under Regulation 19(3) of Terms and Conditions of Supply, the connection can be given to the petitioner. I feel that the petitioner can be given the benefit of payment in instalments of the amount demanded in Ext.P9. If the petitioner applies for change of ownership and complies with the formalities and also pays a sum of Rs.Two Lakhs, connection will be given to the petitioner. Petitioner is also granted five instalments to pay the WPC. 29477/2008. 4 balance amount remaining to be paid. Respondents will intimate the petitioner within one month from today the amount of instalments to be paid by the petitioner upon the petitioner paying Rs.Two Lakhs. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb