IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25446 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A.THOMAS, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM THOMAS, MANAGING PARTNER, ROCK FORT ENTERPRISES, SKINNERPURAM ESTATE, MAROOR P.O. ELAMANNUR, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E.B. ADOOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, EZHAMKULAM. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHIBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KALANJOOR. *ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 17.9.10 IN IA. 12750/10. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALY HEARD ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.25446/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ON 7.7.09 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR TEMPORARY DISCONNECTION SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER.. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19.6.2010 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETTIOENR REQUESTING TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO REMIT THE FIXED CHARGE FOR THE PERIOD OF DISCONNECTION INSTEAD OF DEMANDING THE UNCONSCIONABLE AMOUNT. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29.6.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE K.S.E.B. ADALATH. P4:- COPY OF THE A BILL DTD. 6.7.2010 WAS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 2,06,200/- FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT . P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE WITHOUT ANY DATE ON 27.7.2010 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INFORMING HIM THAT HIS EXT. O2 REPRESENTATION WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE ADALATH ON 28.7.2010. P6:- COPY OF THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT DTD. 31.7.2010 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER. P6(a):- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT P7:- COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DTD. NIL RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 17.8.2010. ANNEXURE1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3.6.10 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXUREII:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J ---------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.25446 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a Metal Crusher unit by name Rock Fort Enterprises with consumer No.8597. The contention of the petitioner is that the said unit was leased out during the period from January 2008 till June 2009. After evicting the lessee the petitioner submitted Ext.p1 application on 7-7-2009 for disconnection and on the next day itself it was disconnected. Later, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application dated 09-02-2010 for reconnection. On coming to know the reason for the delay in granting reconnection as arrears of electric charges the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 representation requesting re-connection only on payment of fixed charge for the period of disconnection. On query he was told that the bill amount would be more than 2 lakhs. Thereupon, he has submitted Ext.P3 representation. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 bill dated 06-07-2010 demanding remittance of amount of Rs.2,06,200/-. This writ petition has been filed challenging the said demand made by the respondents as per Ext.P4 and the W.P.(C).NO.25446 OF 2010 2 subsequent action their part in dismantling the connection on 29-07-2010. A statement has been filed in this writ petition on behalf of the respondents. Along with the statement the notice of dismantling dated 03-06-2010 produced as Annexure 1. The statement contains the details as to how the amount in Ext.P4 was arrived at. The petitioner disputes the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is liable to pay only the fixed charge and meter rent for the period concerned. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to consider the rival contentions on merits. Considering the nature of the dispute involved in this case, it is only proper for the petitioner to resort to the remedy provided under Sub Section (5) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Admittedly, consumer Grievance Redressal Forum has been constituted. It will be open to the petitioner to prefer an application before the Consumer Redressal Forum, Kottarakkara. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would approach the said Forum. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already submitted an application for a three phase connection with a view to reopen W.P.(C).NO.25446 OF 2010 3 the Metal Crusher Unit. Considering all the aforesaid aspects this writ petition is disposed of on the following lines:- If the petitioner is desirous to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kottarakkara he may approach the said Forum within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case petitioner remits an amount of Rs.75,000/- in the meanwhile the additional 4th respondent shall take appropriate steps for giving reconnection to Consumer No.8597. It is made clear that the liability of the petitioner to remit the amount as demanded as per Ext.P4 would be subject to the decision of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. It is also made clear that this order shall not be understood as conferring a right to the petitioner to re-open the Metal Crusher Unit if he is not otherwise entitled to re-open the same. C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE pm