IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 432 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.925/2009 Dated 08/04/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 6 ---------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL OFFICER REVENUE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PALAKKAD. 4. FULL TIME MEMBERS, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, VYDHUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 5 --------------------- 1. M/S HAMSAVENI CARBIDES, NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. INDUSTRIIES DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.P.No.432 of 2009 in W.A.No.925 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Kerala State Electricity Board and three others sought to review the judgment passed in the writ appeal to a limited extent. First ground urged is that the Board is entitled in law to collect in advance from the first respondent herein lawful cost and charges before fresh connection is given and that since an independent dedicated feeder is to be constructed for the first respondent/appellant for effecting connection, the cost thereof has to be borne by the first respondent, and the said cost is to be paid in advance, as per the provisions of the Supply Code. There is a further ground that two weeks' time granted for giving connection after the remittance of Rs.16 lakhs is grossly inadequate having due regard to the fact that line has to be drawn for more than over 1 KM. However, according to them, RP.No.432 of 2009 2 a period of 60 days is sufficient for drawing the line from the date of remittance of Rs.16 lakhs. 2. We have heard the parties. The writ appeal arose from an interim order passed by the learned Single judge and the ground for interference is stated in our judgment. We have not decided as to what exactly is the final liability of the appellant. The interim arrangement was modified to a limited extent by permitting the appellant to remit an amount of Rs.16 lakhs as against Rs.36 lakhs ordered by the learned Single Judge. Since the very judgment we have rendered itself is in the nature of interim arrangement, it will not affect the right of either parties and the final adjudication of the disputed questions has to be resolved in the writ petition. 3. We have considered all the relevant aspects from both angle as also balance of convenience, while passing the order. So however, we notice that as against Rs.36 lakhs, while ordering the appellant to remit Rs.16 lakhs, it was not mentioned that the balance amount of Rs.20 lakhs along with RP.No.432 of 2009 3 other charges shall be paid in instalments. Therefore, we clarify that the balance amount of Rs.20 lakhs to make up Rs.36 lakhs will also be added to the amount, in which case the balance amount to be remitted will be around Rs.42 lakhs, to be paid in 60 equal monthly instalments. The appellant will start payment of the instalments within one month from the date of connection as directed. 4. Though the review petitioner has sought 60 days time from the date of remittance, we notice that Rs.16 lakhs have already been remitted on 28.4.2009 which would expire on 28.6.2009. We give three days further time and therefore connection shall be given on or before 30.6.2009. The review petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.