IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3107 of 2010(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DIVINE MEDICAL CENTRE LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.O.WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BHASKARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VAIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE),VAIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR. 4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, WADAKKANCHERRY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, WADAKKANCHERRY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B , SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010,ALONG WITH WPC NO. 12887 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NOs. 3107 OF 2010 AND 12887 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The issues involved in both these cases are closely interconnected, in so far the crucial question is whether the petitioner could be directed to satisfy the demand to effect ‘additional security deposit’, when according to the petitioner, much amount is lying at the hands of the department to be refunded, pursuant to Ext.P2 order passed by the Electrical Inspector. 2. The factual matrix shows that the petitioner was having an electrical connection and in the course of events, a bill was raised to an extent of Rs.5,11,962/- (Rupees Five lakhs eleven thousand nine hundred and sixty two only) stated as arrears, which was subjected to challenge by filing WP(C) 26569/2004, wherein the coercive steps were intercepted on condition that the petitioner deposited Rs.1.5 lakhs. Finally, the Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the concerned Executive Engineer to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner for redressal of the grievance, on the condition that the petitioner effected a further deposit of Rs.2 lakhs. It is not disputed that there is any failure on the part of the petitioner in this regard, as the petitioner has satisfied both the conditions by effecting a total deposit of Rupees 3.5 lakhs. 3. After considering the representation pursuant to the direction 2 WP(C) No. 3107/2010 & 12887/2007 given by this Court, the same was rejected by the Executive Engineer, which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing WP(C) 1691/2005, wherein Ext.P1 judgment was rendered by this Court directing the ‘Electrical Inspector’ to consider the matter. In furtherance to the said direction, the matter was considered by the Electrical Inspector and after hearing both the sides, Ext.P2 order was passed directing to refund, the amount, limiting the liability to ‘six’ months. It is stated that the petitioner was very much ready to deposit the said amount; which however was not further acted upon from the part of the respondents. After waiting for some time, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing WP(C) 12887/2007 seeking to implement Ext.P2. 4. In the meanwhile, the Executive Engineer had issued Ext.P3 communication dated 28.09.2006 informing the petitioner that the request of the petitioner to have the higher power allocation providing HT connection could be considered only if the entire outstanding liability was cleared. For issuing the above conditional power allocation, the petitioner was required to pay Rs.1,98,700/-. (Rupees One lakh ninety eight thousand and seven hundred only). The petitioner sent Ext.P4 letter in reply, referring to the course and events including passing of Ext.P2 order by the Electrical Inspector and the deposit already made by the petitioner to an extent of Rupees 3.5 lakhs. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 3 WP(C) No. 3107/2010 & 12887/2007 communication dated 29.12.2009 produced in the latter WP(C), whereby the sum of Rs.1,09,920/- was required to be satisfied towards the additional cash deposit, in view of the increased power allocation. The petitioner is stated as not aggrieved of the liability to furnish the additional cash security. But the grievance is that, much amount belonging to the petitioner is lying at the hands of the respondents (having deposited Rs.3.5 lakhs), from which, the amount legally realizable by the Board is only the amount as ordered by the Electrical Inspector vide Ext.P2. As such, the aforesaid amount demanded vide Ext.P1 (in WP(C)3107/2010) was sought to be set off against such balance amount and subjected to challenge in WP(C) 3107/2010, wherein interim stay was granted by this Court, which still continues. The respondents have filed counter affidavit in both the cases. 5. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that Ext.P2 order passed by the Electrical Inspector has not become final and that the proceedings filed by the respondent Board are still pending consideration before the Principal Secretary to the Government. It is stated that being aggrieved of Ext.P2, the respondent Board filed a petition for review, which however was not entertained by the Electrical Inspector and interference was declined, dismissing the same. It was thereafter that the Board approached the Principal Secretary by filing appeal, which is still pending. No final orders have been passed therein, because of the 4 WP(C) No. 3107/2010 & 12887/2007 pendency of the Writ Petitions and this being the position, the demand made by the respondent Board seeking to satisfy the ‘additional security’ is stated as not liable to be interfered under any circumstance. Reference is also made to the relevant provisions of law and regulations so as to sustain the stand taken by the respondent. 6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the issue, particularly with regard to the Ext.P2 order passed by the Electrical Inspector has not become final; the same having been sought to be challenged by way of appeal before the Principal Secretary and that the same is pending. As such, the direction sought for by the petitioner in WP (C) 12887/2007 to implement Ext.P2 is rather ‘pre-mature’, with regard to the claim for refund. However, with regard to the relief seeking for a direction to the respondents to grant HT power allocation to the petitioner, it is rather admitted from both the sides that the petitioner has already been provided with the connection and that the grievance stands redressed. In the said circumstance, no further orders are necessary in this regard and accordingly WP(C)12887/2007 is closed. 7. With regard to the prayer in WP(C) 3107/2010, going by the rival contentions, this Court finds that the matter has to be finalised by the concerned appellate authority in the appeal stated as preferred from the part of the respondents challenging Ext.P2 in WP(C) 12887/2007. But since 5 WP(C) No. 3107/2010 & 12887/2007 the petitioner has already effected the deposit of Rs.3.5 lakhs, which is not disputed from the part of the Board and is lying at the hands of the Board, further stipulation to satisfy the amount of Rs.1,09,920/- towards the ‘additional security deposit’ as demanded in Ext.P1 could be kept pending, till final orders are passed by the Principal Secretary to the State in the appeal stated as filed by the Board against Ext.P2 order passed by the Electrical Inspector in the other case. In the said circumstance, WP(C) 3107/2010 is disposed of, reserving the rights and liberties of the parties concerned, to have the matter settled and set off, subject to the orders to be passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government before whom the appeal is stated as pending. Implementation of the order passed by the Electrical Inspector will be subject to the outcome of the order to be passed as aforesaid and on finalisation of the proceedings as above, if any amount is found liable to be refunded to the petitioner, the same shall be set off against the future bills of the petitioner in accordance with law. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc