IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 32363 of 2002(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SATHEESH M.SREENIVASAN 27/174, SREELAKSHMI, D.N.M.ROAD, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, CORPORATION OF TRICHUR, TRICHUR. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1,2 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1,2 SRI.K.A.SREEJITH FOR R1,2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO. 32363/02 ORDER IN CMP NO.54763 OF 2002 IN OP NO.32363 OF 2002 DISMISSED 12/06/2009 SD/-ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.7.1986 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER TO COMMISIONER, TRICHUR MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER TO THE TRICHUR MUNICIPALITY DT 9.8.1996. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 13.2.1997 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 25.3.1997 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER FROM THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF THE TRICHUR MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 4.4.1997 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER TOT HE SECRETARY OF THE THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 13.1.2000 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER TOT HE ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENR OF THE TRICHUR MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 21.1.2000 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 1.4.2000 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT WAS ISSUED BY THE THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY DT 17.10.2002. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P. NO. 32363 OF 2002 (C) ===================== Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P9, a statement of dues issued by the respondents to the petitioner. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents not to levy any penal interest. There is a further prayer to restore electricity connection to his premises. 2. Petitioner was availing of supply of electrical energy on Consumer No.12968. According to the petitioner, although he has been regularly making payment of the amount demanded as per the bills, unreasonable demand has been made towards arrears of energy charges. It is stated that initially for the period from 1993 onwards, petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.51,333/-. According to the petitioner, subsequently on 8.8.96, he deposited an amount of Rs.39,817/- and later, Rs.14,109/- and that still later by Ext.P7, a further remittance of Rs.20,000/- was made. It is stated that without giving credit to any of those payments, by Ext.P9, an exorbitant amount of Rs.97,303/- was demanded. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner seeks the reliefs mentioned earlier. OP No.32363/02 :2 : 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. From the counter affidavit it would appear that prior to the introduction of the spot billing system from 01/04/2001, charges were levied on the basis of consumer cards issued and the balance on the basis of meter readings taken once in six months. It is stated that until the period when the spot billing system was introduced, the petitioner has been avoiding payment both towards the regular dues and also the dues based on meter readings. According to the respondents, every payment made by the petitioner has been given due credit and as at the time when Ext.P9 was issued exclusive of the penal interest, by way of energy charges alone Rs.76,014/- was due from the petitioner. It is stated that pursuant to the interim order, petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.25,000/- and after giving credit, towards energy charges, an amount of Rs.58,160/- is still due from the petitioner. 4. As already stated, the case of the petitioner is that the payments made by him have not been given credit while issuing the demand as per Ext.P9. Apart from Ext.P7, the covering letter which states of having enclosed cheque for Rs.20,000/-, petitioner has not placed anything on record to substantiate the plea that he OP No.32363/02 :3 : made payments as claimed by him. Therefore, the question would be whether the amount of Rs.20,000/- allegedly paid under cover of Ext.P7 has been given credit. Going by Ext.P9 produced along with the writ petition, it can be seen that payments received have been given credit while quantifying the opening balance of the petitioner as on April, 2000. If that be so, the only possible inference is that payments made have been given credit. If so, on the materials produced in this OP, I cannot find fault with the quantification done. 5. The other prayer made by the petitioner is that he should be absolved of his liability to pay the penal interest. Having regard to the provisions of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy framed by the Board exercising the powers under Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which authorised levy of penalty on belated payments, I cannot find fault with the Board in demanding such amounts. In the result, Original Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp