IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16860 of 2008(F) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MANOJ BHASKAR, PARTNER, PATTATHUVILA TIMBER DEPOT, PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.M.C.ANTONY RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, APTS, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIGILANCE WING, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUY CHIEF ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, KSEB, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 4. THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B., SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SHRI P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 16860 OF 2008 F -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th June, 2008 JUDGMENT One of the prayers sought in the Writ Petition is to take a decision on Ext.P4. Petitioner, no doubt, challenges Ext.P3. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that there was a proceeding against the petitioner which ultimately culminated in Ext.P1 appellate order. In Ext.P1 appellate order it was found that there was only short recording of energy due to loose contact in one phase and theft/misuse of energy has not occurred in the consumer installation as per the site mahazar prepared on 16.3.2005. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section was directed to revise the penal bill. According to petitioner, there is no revision of the penal bill. Petitioner has been charged at the enhanced rate, it is contended. Petitioner has allegedly paid Rs.25,000/= (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand) as directed by this Court and the connection was restored. It is the further case that WPC. 16860/08 2 the petitioner's connection was dismantled on 11.8.2006. Ext.P2 is the order of the Tahsildar. In the meantime, after dismantling, according to petitioner, he closed down the unit. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner approached the respondents to issue a fresh electricity connection as he wanted to start a new business. By Ext.P3, he was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.33,986/= (Rupees Thirtythree Thousand, Nine hundred & Eightysix) alleged to be the arrears of current charges for the period from 7/06 to 7/07 and the interest thereon after deducting the security deposit of Rs.9,820/=. It is thereupon that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation. Petitioner prays that a decision may be taken on Ext.P4. The request of the petitioner is not seriously resisted by the learned counsel for the respondents, who submits that the complaint of the petitioner can be looked into by the third respondent authority. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to WPC. 16860/08 3 consider and take a decision on Ext.P4 in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. I leave open the challenge to Ext.P3. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.