IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 2536 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ARUN.P.D., S/O.LATE P.N.DAMODARAN, PANDRAPATTATHIL, PARAAYAKADU P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B, CHERTHALA. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E.B, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), CHERTHALA. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTHIYATHODE. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.2536 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner's father was the owner of an ice plant where power supply was being availed of with consumer No.5935. His father expired in 1989 an the petitioner stepped into his shoes. While so, in March, 2004, he was issued Ext.P1 demanding an amount of Rs.3,43,848/-. Allegedly the short assessment charges, which was for the period from February, 2002 to January, 2003 and arose on account of a wrong application of the multiplication of the factor. The petitioner also submits that interest also has been levied by Ext.P1. 2. Ext.P1 was challenged before this court in WP (c).No.2503/05 which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. However appeal filed was rejected as WP(c).No2536/09 2 per Ext.P3. In the meanwhile, in February, 2004, power supply itself was disconnected and the equipments installed by the Board were also dismantled in 19th October 2004. 3. Subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner by Ext.P3 order, she was issued Ext.P4 demanding Rs.4,73,272/- together with interest and revenue recovery charges. This was followed by Ext.P5, revenue recovery notice as well. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid proceedings before this court in WP(c). No.31901/05. Counsel submits that pursuant to the orders passed Rs.40,000/- was paid by the petitioner in partial discharge of the liability. The writ petition was finally disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment. In Ext.P6 judgment dealing with the complaint of the petitioner that he has been saddled with the liability of interest also, this court held that the interest was not levied on the petitioner and this position is reiterated before me also. Proceeding further this court in paragraph 4 of the judgment allowed the petitioner to discharge the liability towards the principal amount by paying monthly instalments of Rs.10,000/- each and he was WP(c).No2536/09 3 also exonerated of revenue recovery charges as well. 4. Petitioner submits that for financial constraints he could not comply with the order to pay in instalments and that he made Ext.P8 representation requesting the authorities to allow him to make payment. It is stated that the same was allowed as per Ext.P4 and that accordingly by Ext.P9 petitioner paid an amount of Rs.25,000/-also. Despite all this, recovery proceedings continued and the petitioner's representation to adjust the security deposit and the subsequent payments also did not evoke any response. It is in these circumstances he filed this writ petition. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this court on 6.2.2009 petitioner made a further payment of Rs.30,000/-. 5. What the petitioner now prays for is that the respondents be directed to exonerate him from payment of interest and recovery charges, that they should the adjust security deposit of Rs.50,000/- and the amount realized out of Rs.95,000/- remitted by the petitioner in 3 instalments and that the revenue recovery action should be stopped. The petitioner also disputes the fixed charges that has been WP(c).No2536/09 4 levied on for the period up to October, 2004. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. According to them, Ext.P1 demand was issued on account of short assessment, arising out of a wrong application of the multiplication factor it is stated that no interest has been levied on the petitioner. According to the respondents, even after March, 2004, petitioner continued to commit default and it was therefore that including the amount demanded in Ext.P1, by Ext.P4 Rs.4,73,272 was demanded from the petitioner. It is also pointed out that, even the installment payment ordered in Ext.P6 judgment has not been complied with and therefore he is liable to pay the entire charges. 7. Admittedly, supply to the premises in question was disconnected in February, 2004 and the installation was dismantled in October, 2004. Necessarily, therefore the petitioner has liability to pay charges till October, 2004 which includes fixed charges levied. Similarly he is also entitled to grant security deposit and the payment made by him adjusted towards his liability. Although the petitioner WP(c).No2536/09 5 has a case that interest has already been levied on him, since he has been exonerated of interest as per Ext.P6 judgment and as the respondent also asserts before me that interest has not been levied I do not think that further deliberation on this issue is necessary. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 8. The respondents shall quantify the amount that is due from the petitioner till October, 2004, which will include fixed charges also. Towards the liability thus quantified, the security deposit available and the amount realized out of Rs.95,000/- remitted by the petitioner in instalments shall be adjusted and the balance shall be intimated to the petitioner without any liability for interest or revenue recovery charges. It is directed that this exercise shall be completed by the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment with notice tot he petitioner. 9. It is directed that once the intimation is given to the petitioner as above, the petitioner shall discharge the WP(c).No2536/09 6 liability in six equal monthly installments, the first installment shall be payable within 2 weeks of the receipt of the aforesaid communication and the subsequent installments will fall on the same day of the succeeding month. Subject to the payment as above, revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. In case default is committed, the revenue recovery proceedings already initiated shall be continued. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No2536/09 7