IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2011/16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 25626 of 2004 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- K.I.SATHYAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANNEX RECYCLERS LIMITED, XXV/1290/8 REGENCY COMPLEX, KURUPAM ROAD, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. R1 BY SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN, SC, TRICHUR MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25626 of 2004 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE CARD DATED NIL EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.2000 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.02.2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 5.7.2001 IN O.P. 18627/01 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2001 IN O.P. 18627/01 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED 6.7.2002 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.6.2003 TO THE SUB ENGINEER AS DIRECTED BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICCATION DATED 14.8.2003 EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12.9.2003 EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.3.2004 EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 25.2.2001 EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 26.4.2004 EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 5.6.2004 EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.6.2004 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ELECTRICITY READING BOOK ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY TO SRI.HARSHAN EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE OTHER SPOT BILLS FROM 4/03 SIGNED BY ISSUED BY THE ASSITANT SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25626 of 2004 ---------------------------- Dated 6th June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Managing Director of a Private Limited Company viz., `Amex Recyclers Limited', Thrissur. It is functioning in a room bearing No.25/1290/8 of the Corporation of Thrissur. The petitioner is, in fact, a tenant of the said room with Electricity Consumer No.8735B. Earlier, electricity connection to the said room was disconnected on the ground of non-payment of electricity charges due towards the Corporation. Feeling aggrieved by a demand notice issued by the respondents the petitioner had approached this Court by filing O.P.No.18627 of 2001. The demand made by the respondents at that point of time was for payment of Rs.59,777/- towards outstanding charges for restoring the electric supply. The petitioner had also submitted an application for enhancing the connected load. That application was not considered on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner to remit the amount in arrears. The respondents took the stand that the application for enhancement of the connected load would not be considered if the amount in arrears is not cleared. After considering the rival contentions the said original petition was disposed of as per Ext.P4(a) judgment. In terms of the order in C.M.P.No.30027 WP(C).No.25626/2004 2 of 2001 in the said original petition electricity connection was restored. Later, as per Ext.P4(a) judgment, the petitioner was directed to remit Rs.20,000/- towards the amount stated to be in arrears viz., Rs.59,777/- to maintain the electric connection obtained based on the interim order. The petitioner was also granted a liberty to file a proper representation before the respondents in case he got any objection against the amount demanded viz., Rs.59,777/- and the respondents therein were, in turn, directed to consider the representation, if any, filed by the petitioner. It is made clear that remittance of further amount would depend upon the decision on such representation. The contention of the petitioner is that he had remitted an amount of Rs.20,000/- in compliance with Ext.P4(a) judgment in O.P.No.18627 of 2001. Ext.P5 is the receipt issued in token of receipt of the said amount by the respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of Ext.P4(a) judgment a representation was submitted and he had also forwarded a copy of the judgment along with the said representation. Later, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation. Evidently, as per Ext.P6, the petitioner made only a request to upgrade the electric supply for using Air Conditioner. Ext.P6 cannot be construed as a representation submitted in terms of Ext.P4(a) judgment. The petitioner has not produced the copy of the WP(C).No.25626/2004 3 representation allegedly submitted in terms of Ext.P4(a) judgment. In that context, it is to be noted that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the petitioner had not submitted any representation as has been permitted as per Ext.P4(a). In other words, they had not received any representation from the petitioner subsequent to Ext.P4(a) judgment. However, it is admitted that in terms of Ext.P4(a) judgment an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the petitioner. Since no objection was raised against the demand which was called in question in O.P.No.18627 of 2001 the respondents decided to proceed against the petitioner and thereupon issued Ext.P9 demand notice. As per Ext.P9, an amount of Rs.70,183/- was demanded. In Ext.P9 it has been specifically stated that the petitioner had not effected any further payment after effecting a payment of Rs.20,000/- on 6.7.2002, in terms of Ext.P4(a) judgment. The petitioner was further cautioned that in case of his failure to effect payment of the amount demanded as per Ext.P9 the electricity connection would be disconnected. The petitioner has produced Exts.P10 to P12 to contend that he had effected payment of the amounts demanded as per the subsequent bills. However, according to the respondents, after effecting payment in terms of Ext.P4(a) the petitioner has not made any further payment. According to them, even WP(C).No.25626/2004 4 after receipt of Ext.P9 demand notice no amount was paid. In the said circumstances, Ext.P13 was issued intimating the petitioner that in case of his failure to pay the amount demanded as per Ext.P9 revenue recovery proceedings would be taken. It is challenging Exts.P9 and P13 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. As already noticed hereinbefore, there is nothing on record to show that subsequent to Ext.P4(a) judgment, availing liberty granted as per the said judgment, a proper representation was submitted by the petitioner. In fact, it is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had not filed any such representation. In the absence of anything on record to show that a proper representation was submitted availing the liberty granted as per Ext.P4(a) this Court can only presume that the petitioner had no objection to be raised. Though the petitioner has a case that subsequent to the payment of Rs.20,000/- in terms of Ext.P4(a) judgment he had been effecting payments towards subsequent bills without any fail no document has been produced to enable this Court to accept the said contention. In fact, it is the contention of the respondents that after effecting payment of Rs.20,000/- in terms of Ext.P4(a) the petitioner has not effected any payment at all. To refute WP(C).No.25626/2004 5 the said contention and to substantiate the contention that the petitioner has been remitting the bills regularly, he has produced Exts.P10 to P12. However, Exts.P10 to P12 are only copies of bills. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had effected any such payment. At the same time, nothing is discernible from the impugned notices viz., Exts.P9 and P13 and also from the contentions raised in the counter affidavit as to what exactly was the basis for demanding an amount of Rs.70,183/-. In Ext.P9 certain figures have been given and the opening balance as on 4/98 was shown as Rs.32,349.87. In that context, it is to be noted that the petitioner had filed O.P.No.18627 of 2001 against the demand of an amount of Rs.59,777/-. In terms of the direction in Ext.P4(a) judgment the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- and admittedly he had paid the same. A perusal of Ext.P9 would reveal that at no point of time opening balance was shown as Rs.Rs.39,777/-. Perhaps the said amount represents the amount obtained on subtracting the amount paid in terms of Ext.P4(a) judgment from the amount covered by the demand notice called in question in O.P.No.18627 of 2001. In the said context, I am constrained to observe that the basis for the demand made as per Ext.P9 could not be gathered from Ext.P9. At any rate, it will not tally with the statements available at WP(C).No.25626/2004 6 the time of institution of O.P.No.18627 of 2001. 3. While admitting this writ petition on 25.8.2004, this Court directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.20,000/- as a condition to order to keep in abeyance the steps for disconnection pursuant to Ext.P13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not effected the payment as ordered by this Court on 25.8.2004. Taking into account all these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- In case the petitioner complies with the interim order dated 25.8.2004 viz., direction to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the respondents shall keep in abeyance all steps for effecting recovery of the amount demanded as per Ext.P9 as contemplated vide Ext.P13. In case the petitioner effects the payment as ordered in the interim order dated 25.8.2004 within the above stipulated time, the respondents shall keep in abeyance all further proceedings and in which event it will be open to the petitioner to make a proper representation in case he got any dispute with respect to the amount demanded as per Ext.P9. It is WP(C).No.25626/2004 7 made clear that in case of failure on the part of the petitioner to effect the payment of Rs.20,000/- within the above stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to pursue with the steps contemplated under Ext.P13. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS