IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 30293 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- E.PRASEEJA, PARTNER, MANOHAR JEWELLERIES, JEWEL HOUSE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PAYYANNUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PAYYANNUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PAYYANNUR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30293 of 2009(F) 2 APPENDIX EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.8.2009 IN W.P.(C) 24072/2009. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE OVERDRAFT/CASH CREDIT PAID BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 5.9.2009. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.9.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.26463/2009. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPIES OF THE CHEQUES DATED 22.9.2009 FOR RS.78,083/- AND RS.29,736. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 5.10.2009 //TRUE COPY// C.A. TO JUDGE S.SIRIJAGAN, J. ================== W.P. (C) No. 30293 OF 2009 ======================= Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. However the building to which she had obtained the connection is treated as an unauthorised construction by the local authority, in respect of which proceedings are pending before the government for regularisation of the construction. In view of the fact that the construction has not been regularised, the respondents holds the view that the electricity connection is also unauthorised. Consequently petitioner is imposed with penal charges while demanding normal electricity charges. In respect of the same the petitioner earlier approached this court and obtained Ext.P1 judgment, by which petitioner was permitted to pay the arrears in installments. Since the construction was not regularised the respondents continue to issue bills including penal charges. When one such bill was received, petitioner again approached this court and by Ext.P1 judgment this court directed that the amount of the said additional bill also be added along with arrears so as to enable the petitioner to pay the amount covered by that bill also in installments. However it was made clear that W.P. (C) No. 30293 OF 2009 : 2 : along with installments the petitioner shall also pay the regular monthly electricity charges payable by the petitioner without default, which shall be a condition for the above facility. Again Ext.P6 bill was issued which is challenged in this writ petition. At the time of admission I granted stay of disconnection on the condition that the petitioner pays 50% of the amount covered by Ext.P6 bill. Petitioner has now filed I.A.No. 14778/09 seeking to stay of Ext.P7 further bill for a further period. 2. The standing counsel for the Electricity Board opposes the prayers of the petitioner on the ground that after having obtained Ext.P1 and P4 judgments, they cannot now seek stay of recovery of further bills. According to him the remedy of the petitioner lies in getting the construction regularized as early as possible and seek refund if he is eligible for the same in accordance with the orders of regularisation. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. I am satisfied that in view of Ext.P1 and P4 judgments the petitioner is not entitled to any further reliefs in the matter as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel. The remedy of the petitioner lies is expeditious the proceedings for regularisation of the unauthorised construction and seeking refund of any excess amount paid, W.P. (C) No. 30293 OF 2009 : 3 : if he is eligible for the same in accordance with the orders of regularisation to be obtained. Of course it is for the Electricity Board to decide whether on the face of the order of regularisation, the petitioner is entitled to refund of any penal charges paid by the petitioner. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of as follows:- The petitioner shall pay the demands made after Ext.P4 judgment as demanded. However, nothing stated in this judgment shall prevent the petitioner from claiming any benefits as per Ext.P1 judgment. For paying the bill the amounts challenged in this writ petition the Electricity Board shall give the petitioner two weeks time. Needless to say, the petitioner would be liable to pay surcharge for such delayed payment. For the above said period of two weeks the electricity supply to the petitioner shall not be disconnected. ( S.SIRIJAGAN, JUDGE) mns