IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6553 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- WILFRED SATHYARAJ,S/O.SATHYARAJ RESIDING AT THENOOR NILAYAM POONAJAN CODE MURI, KATTAKADA,PERUMKULAM VILLAGE NEDUMANGAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) SMT.A.A.GEETHA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VAIDYUDHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM,REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KATTAKADA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, NEDUMANGAD. BY SC SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.6553 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Ext.P11 was issued by this Court in relation to a bill dated 6-10-2001. The appellate decision was referred to as Ext.R2(d) in Ext.P11. Therefore, that judgment vests on the issue referable to the bill dated 6-10-2001 which is Ext.P2 in that case. Certain facts have been noticed in Ext.P11. Certain reliefs were also granted in favour of the petitioner, however directing that the petitioner is liable to pay other amounts under conditional orders. 2. Now the petitioner contends that Ext.P11 gives a final adjudication of all claims of the respondents and therefore no other bills could be raised. It is shown that during the WPC6553/2008 -:2:- pendency of the case leading to Ext.P11, bills were raised resulting in outstandings under demand. 3. Even if Ext.P11 judgment was delivered only on 28-6-2007, as already noticed, such judgments deal exclusively with the bill dated 6-10-2001. It is therefore impossible to characterize Ext.P11 as a final verdict touching the demand of the Board for different payments. It is also clear from the first sentence of the last paragraph of Ext.P11 judgment. 4. As of now, the petitioner seeks re- connection and the respondents take the stand that re-connection can be done only if the entire outstandings are paid. While Ext.P11 WPC6553/2008 -:3:- would cover any demand in terms of the bill dated 6-10-2001, it is obvious that the claim of the respondents for any other payment cannot be regulated by the terms of Ext.P11 judgment. 5. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the demands made, he has an alternate efficacious remedy before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner pays the entire demand under protest and pays re-connection charges, the Board will effect re-connection. He may also be at liberty to raise the dispute before the CGRF and have adjudication on the sustainability of the impugned bills. It will be upto him to WPC6553/2008 -:4:- await the decision of the CGRF and apply for re-connection on the basis of the decision of the CGRF. It will also be open to the petitioner to show before the CGRF that all payments have been made as regards the demands made on account of misuse of energy. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, sl. Judge.