IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 1933 of 2010(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MERRY LAND FROZEN CREAMS PVT.LTD, 'BETHAL TANCEE',XIV/735/A/1,THELLAKOM.P.O, ETTUMANOOR,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.M.V.BIPIN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL SECTION, ETTUMANOOR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,ELECTRICAL SECTION, ETTUMANOOR. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1933 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and call for the records leading to the exhibit-P10 and quash the same; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or any other appropriate writ directing 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 and P3 applications of the petitioner for additional power load to the unit, within a period of 1 month; (iii) To command the 2nd respondent not to take any coercive action against the petitioner alleging availing of additional load when Ext.P1 and P3 are pending.” 2. The relief sought for by the petitioner has been strongly opposed by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit and also producing copies of the relevant documents, explaining the sequence of events. Going by the facts as narrated by the respondents in the counter affidavit, it is seen that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to satisfy the due amount so as to install a transformer and to provide the requisite load, which is stated as still to be satisfied. It is specifically averred in para 9 of the said counter affidavit that the respondents are ready to issue power allocation to the petitioner, if the cost of the WPC No.1933/2010 2 proposed works demanded as per Ext.R3(e) is remitted by the petitioner, simultaneously pointing out that the total amount required in this regard is Rs.2,20,500/- as given in Ext.R3(e). 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, but for the amount shown in Ext.R3(e), the petitioner has already satisfied the amount covered by Ext.P8 and that the installation of the transformer may not be necessitated in the petitioner's case, as the petitioner is proposing to leave the premises and to start the unit somewhere else. It is stated that construction works are going on and there is every chance to have it completed by December, 2010. The prayer of the petitioner is only to permit the petitioner to avail the benefit of electricity connection as it now exists till December 2010. Learned counsel also submits that the limited extent of the relief as stated above has already been brought to the notice of the concerned respondent by filing Ext.P11 representation, which has been produced along with I.A. No.10604 of 2010. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the crux of the relief sought for by the petitioner is to permit the petitioner to continue to avail the electricity, contrary to the statutory provisions, without meeting the requirements to install the transformer and to avoid the payment as mentioned in Ext.R3(e), which is not liable to be entertained. For the said reason itself, no positive relief can be granted to WPC No.1933/2010 3 the petitioner, even if Ext.P11 representation is caused to be considered. But the learned standing counsel also submits that a nearby consumer has already remitted the amount for installation of the transformer, as evident from Ext.R3(a), and steps are going on to have the transformer installed and once the transformer is installed, the question whether the petitioner could be extended any benefit by providing necessary load allocation can be considered. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court thinks it fit and proper that the third respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P11 representation filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The status quo as on today will continue till such time. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) vps WPC No.1933/2010 4 WPC No.1933/2010 5