IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY, 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1931 OP.No. 20759 of 2000 (U) PETITIONER: ------------------ M.D.THOMAS, PROPRIETOR, RED LAND TEA FACTORY, KOCHUKARIMTHARUVI, ELAPPARA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 BY ADV.SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1TOR3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (O.P.NO.20759 OF 2000) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: Copy of the representation dtd.4.5.99. Ext.P2: Copy of the letter SS 9/98-99/24-6-99 issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P3: Copy of the representation dtd.27.12.99. Ext.P4: Copy of the representation dtd.30.12.99 submitted before 2nd respondent. Ext.P5: Copy of the representation dtd.23.2.2000 submitted by the petitioner before 3rd respondent. Ext.P6: Copy of the letter No.BB/2000-2001/dated 5.4.2000 issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P7: Copy of the letter issued by the 3rd respondent. -true copy- P.A.to Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- O.P.No. 20759 of 2000 - U --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Proprietor of a Small Scale Industrial Unit engaged in the manufacture of various grades of tea dust. The sanctioned connected load of his unit is 1215 E.P.A., which is coming within the Low Tension Category. According to the petitioner, his unit faced serious financial set backs due to the fall in the price of tea dust and his industrial unit became sick and was closed down during September, 1994. According to the petitioner, during such period, the vigilance people, on inspection, found that there were some spare motors kept in the factory without being connected and they clubbed the load of the said spare motors with those of the ones connected and arrived at the actual total connected load as 99.893 KW and finally, the third respondent issued a bill for Rs.21,413/- to the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No.268 of 1995 and this Court granted an interim order of stay of disconnection of the petitioner's electric connection on furnishing bank guarantee OP NO.20759 OF 2000 :-2-: for the bill amount. But, he could not comply with the above condition. Now, the case of the petitioner is that in view of Regulation 34(d) of the Regulations relating to the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, no service shall remain disconnected continuously for a period exceeding six months for non-payment of amount due to the Board . As per the said regulation, if the dues are not paid within six months period of disconnection, the service shall be dismantled and agreement terminated immediately after the 6 months of disconnection after giving 15 days notice to the consumer. But, in the present case, the Board could not dismantle the connection and therefore, according to the petitioner, he is not liable to pay the amount as demanded, especially he is liable to pay only fixed charge and service connection for the period from March 1995 to June 1999. It is also prayed for the issuance of writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the respondents from levying and collecting the fixed charge and rental for the service lines for the period from March, 1995 to June 1999. 2. The Board has filed a detailed counter affidavit showing how the amount so arrived. In paragraph 8 of the OP NO.20759 OF 2000 :-3-: counter affidavit, it is stated that even though the service to the factory was disconnected on 5.11.1994 due to the non-remittance of the arrears, the Board did not dismantle the service since a writ petition namely, O.P.No.268 of 1995 was pending before this Court. It is also stated that dismantling was not effected because of the acute financial stringency of the petitioner. So, according to the Board, the electric connection was not dismantled in terms of Regulation 34(d). The Board, in its counter affidavit, has also pointed out that installations were kept in readiness until it was revived in May, 99 and the allotted power was not diverted to other consumers and hence, the Board is entitled to claim fixed charges. It is also borne out from the counter affidavit of the Board that the petitioner has approached the Minister for Electricity Board and obtained instalment facilities, but the same was not complied with. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the second respondent, after considering the grievance of the petitioner, permitted him to remit the amount in ten equal monthly instalments, but he had paid only the first instalment. The instalment facility allowed by the Deputy Chief Engineer also was not fully utilised by the petitioner. In paragraph 12 of the OP NO.20759 OF 2000 :-4-: counter affidavit, the Board has stated that the petitioner has enjoyed the benefit of reservation of power required for him to restart the factory and for this, there was no additional cost and there was no additional investment also. According to the Board, the petitioner got those benefits only because of the lenient view taken by the Board. 3. I have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel for the Board. 4. From the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the Board did not adopt the coercive steps of dismantling the connection of the petitioner because of the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. It is also relevant to note that considering the future expenses regarding the re-connection on dismantling the materials in the factory premises of the petitioner, the Board did not dismantle the connection. Besides the above, it is also seen, which is not under dispute, that instalment facilities were given to the petitioner by various authorities of the Board for making the payment. OP NO.20759 OF 2000 :-5-: Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court as there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ OP NO.20759 OF 2000 :-6-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P.NO. 20759 OF 2000 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T DATED: 21-5-2009 OP NO.20759 OF 2000 :-7-: