IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 241 of 2011(E) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.S.SUDEESH, S/O. LATE P.N.SANKARA PILLAI, AGED 40, POTHANAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KOLANI.P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM.P.O., TRIVANDRUM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. PIN-695004. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, THE KERALA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM.P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695004. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SECTION NO.1, THODUPUZHA-685584. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 AND R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.241 OF 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. He has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 demand notice issued by the third respondent demanding payment of the sum of Rs.37,922/- by way of additional cash deposit. The petitioner contends that the demand for additional cash deposit is contrary to Regulation 15(4) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. 2. Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board submitted that the security deposit furnished by the petitioner was found to be inadequate having regard to the average consumption of energy during the financial year and the present tariff in force, and therefore, the demand for additional cash deposit was made. The learned counsel also submitted that under the terms and conditions of supply, the Board is empowered to demand additional cash security to be furnished and that the security deposit will be refunded when the agreement between the Board and the consumer is terminated. 3. Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Electricity Regulatory Commission submitted that while the demand in Ext.P2 is sustainable, the Board ought not W.P.(C) No.241 of 2011 2 have included the demand for additional cash deposit in Ext.P1 invoice for the reason that the additional cash deposit is liable to be refunded under Regulation 18 of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 at the time of termination of the agreement. The learned counsel also submtted that the additional cash security can be demanded only in the first quarter of the financial year or when tariff revision is effected. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. Regulation 15(4) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 reads as follows:- “The Board will review the adequacy of security of all consumers in the first quarter of every financial year or when tariff revision is effected based on the average consumption of the preceding financial year and charges and tariffs in force. Based on the review, the Board may demand for shortfall or adjust the excess security in the first quarter itself as the case may be, by giving 30 days notice to the consumer. The Board shall ensure that the previous deposits furnished by the consumer is properly given credit before rising notices for additional cash deposit.” (emphasis supplied) 5. All that the Regulation 15(4) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 states is that the Board will review the adequacy of security in the first quarter of every financial year or W.P.(C) No.241 of 2011 3 when tariff revision is effected based on the average consumption and tariff in force. It is based on such a review that the demand for shortfall has to made. It is also stipulated that the consumer should be given 30 days notice . In the instant case, Ext.P2 is dated 7.12.2010. As per the said notice, the consumer has been called upon to furnish cash deposit on or before 6.1.2011 meaning thereby that the consumer has been given 30 days notice to make the deposit. Therefore, the demand is in accordance with the Regulations. Though the learned standing counsel for the Kerala Electricity Regulatory Commission submitted that the demand for security can be made only in the first quarter of the financial year, I find nothing in the Regulations to that effect. All that the regulation states is that review will be made in the first quarter of the financial year or when tariff revision is effected based on the average consumption of the preceding year and charges and tariffs in force. Ext.P2 notice was issued on 7.12.2010. The first quarter of the financial year concerned is April, May and June of 2010. The Board has hundreds of thousands of consumers. It would therefore not be possible for the Board to issue the demand during the first quarter of the financial year. In regulation 15(4), the review alone is contemplated in the first quarter. W.P.(C) No.241 of 2011 4 The demand can be made even thereafter. I am therefore satisfied that the demand in Ext.P2 is in order. I however find merit and force in the submission of the learned counsel for Kerala Electricity Regulatory Commission that the demand in Ext.P2 should not have been incorporated in Ext.P1 invoice for the reason that additional cash security is liable to be refunded on the termination of the agreement, if no amount is due at that stage from the consumer. 6. In such circumstances, even while declining to interfere with the demand in Ext.P2, I direct the first respondent Board to issue a revised invoice in the place of Ext.P1 after deleting the amount covered by Ext.P2, especially having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already remitted the energy charges payable as per Ext.P1. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.