IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 3458 of 2007(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.P.PATHEEVI, W/O. LATE AVUKOYA NAHA, BISMILLA ICE AND COLD STORAGE, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, K.S.E.B., KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E.B., PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3458 of 2007 EXHIBITS ------------ PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------ P1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P. 10494/2003 DT.27.3.03 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 19.12.06 AS NO.1643/03/1251. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT.3.1.07 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 8.1.07 TO THE PETITIONER. P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 17.1.07 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ....................................................................... WP (C) NO. 3458 of 2007 ............................................... Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the payment of interest to be made by her to the K.S.E.B. This court has passed an interim order on 22-02-2007, for a period of one month, directing that the power supply shall not be disconnected for not paying the interest. The respondents have filed a statement which stands uncontroverted. In terms of that statement, the disputed amount, that the petitioner had to pay was Rs. 20,806/- and that amount was payable in March 2003. The petitioner obtained an interim order of stay of payment of the entire amount of Rs.24,645/- by filing an OP 10494/03. That order of stay does not enable the petitioner to avoid accrual of interest. Evidently that stay order covered admitted amounts also. Therefore the K.S.E.Board cannot be told that it cannot charge interest WP (C) NO. 3458 of 2007 2 on the amount that was due in March 2003. Therefore the challenge in the writ petition fails. The learned counsel for the K.S.E.Board states that the petitioner could have made a representation to the Secretary of the K.S.E.Board seeking one time settlement of the interest component and that this would have relieved the petitioner from paying at least a portion of the interest claimed by the K.S.E.Board. It is clarified that this judgment does not affect the right of the petitioner to move the Secretary of KSEB to that effect. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE. rkc