IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19999 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ V.C.JAMES, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, VAYALATH HOUSE, CHAKKITTAPARA POST, KAYANNA VIA., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., PERAMBRA, PERAMBRA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., PERAMBRA, P.O.PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., PERAMBRA, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B. CHAKKITTAPARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. THE SUB ENGINEER IN CHARGE, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B.CHAKKITTAPARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1TO5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19999 OF 2009 (T) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is availing of supply of electrical energy in his residential premises with Consumer No.214 and in his shop premises with Consumer No.437. In September, 1999, he was issued bills demanding Rs.5,275/- in respect of Consumer No.214 and Rs.12,338/- in respect of Consumer No.437. That was challenged before the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Perambra by filing OS 142/99 resulting in Ext.P1 judgment where the Civil Court held that the respondents should issue a revised bill based on the average consumption of energy for three months succeeding the date on which theft was found, as provided under Clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. 2. Long thereafter, in purported compliance of Ext.P1, petitioner was issued Ext.P6 bill demanding Rs.2,785/- in respect of Consumer No.214 and Rs.5,688/- in respect of Consumer No.437. Along with this amount, surcharge was added and the total amount demanded is Rs.37,628/-. Petitioner contends that the method of calculation adopted in Ext.P6 bill is not in compliance with the WPC 19999/09 :2 : directions of the Civil Court as contained in Ext.P1 judgment, which was confirmed in AS 14/05 and RSA 357/09. Complaining of this, he has filed Ext.P9 before the 4th respondent. While response to Ext.P9 was awaited, on the allegation of non payment of the amount due under Ext.P6, it is stated that supply was disconnected on 10/7/09. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 3. As already stated, the complaint of the petitioner is that in issuing Ext.P6, the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment rendered by the Civil Court in OS 142/99 has not been complied with. This grievance has been urged in Ext.P9 complaint made to the 4th respondent. In the nature of the complaint now raised, the matter needs to be looked into, and therefore I dispose of this writ petition directing the 4th respondent to examine Ext.P9 complaint, if the same has been received and is pending, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. It is directed that once orders are passed as above, if the petitioner makes payment of the dues, the supply will be restored. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp