IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18250 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.VYSALI PHARMACEUTIVALS LTD.,A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 34/754,755,KANNAMTHODATHU ROAD,EDAPPALLY,KOCHI 24. REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.A.D.KRISHNAN, S/O.A.DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD,AGED 62 YRS. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL OFFICER(REVENUE),KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,KSEB,THEVAKKAL, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.18250 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an High Tension consumer, engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. It is stated that their factory was closed during the period from 01/04/2008 to 30/11/2008, and that it was re-opened only from 01/12/2008 onwards. This contention is sought to be corroborated by referring to Ext.P3 certificate issued by the District Labour Officer. 2. The petitioner submits that in respect of factories, which reopened on or before 30/12/2008, the respondent Board announced a scheme whereunder the fixed and minimum charges during the closure period will be waived. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P2, enclosing Ext.P3 certificate referred to above, they applied for the benefit of waiver. However, the Board allowed waiver only for the period from February, 2008 to July, 2008, and intimated the outstanding dues of the petitioner by Ext.P4. 3. According to the petitioner, as the factory was re- WP(C) No.18250/2009 -2- opened only from December, 2008, they were entitled to the benefit of waiver until that time, and therefore, against Ext.P4, they submitted Ext.P5. By Ext.P7, the Board replied to the petitioner rejecting its claim. 4. When the Board allowed waiver for the period up to July, 2008, the Board also had allowed the petitioner to discharge its outstanding dues in monthly instalments. The petitioner submits that they paid the first instalment. But, however, as according to them, they were anticipating favourale orders on Ext.P5, they did not make payment of the instalment that fell due on 11/06/2009. It is stated that taking advantage of the default, supply was disconnected by the Board on 20/06/2009. The petitioner represented the matter before the Minister for Electricity and favourable orders were not forthcoming. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 5. The first prayer made by the petitioner is to direct the Board to allow waiver for the period up to December, 2008. In so far as this contention is concerned, a reading of Ext.P4 shows that going by the records available with the Board, the factory was WP(C) No.18250/2009 -3- reopened on 01/08/2008. On instructions, the learned standing counsel for the Board submits that at the request of the petitioner, supply was revived from 01/08/2008 and since then, the consumption was also being recorded. In the light of these factual materials, this Court will not be justified in upsetting the denial of waiver for the period subsequent to 01/08/2008. 6. The other relief sought for by the petitioner is to permit it to continue the instalment facility allowed by Ext.P4, and on clearing the defaulted instalments, to direct the Board to restore supply of energy. True, the petitioner has defaulted in remitting the instalment that fell due on 11/06/2009 and in Ext.P4 itself, it is made clear that default will entail in forfeiture of the benefit. However, one cannot brush aside the fact that the petitioner is an industry affected by sickness and is making every attempt to be back on the rails. If at this stage, taking an unrealistic and technical attitude Ext.P4 is implemented, it will adversely affect the petitioner. Therefore, keeping in view that the industry is making every attempt to be back on the rails, I feel it necessary to relax the rigorous conditions in Ext.P4. WP(C) No.18250/2009 -4- 7. Having regard to the above, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to remit the instalment that was due on 11/06/2009 together with interest till date of payment at applicable rates, and on such remittance, the Board shall restore supply of energy, if the petitioner is not in any other default. The petitioner shall continue to make payment of the instalments as specified in Ext.P4 also. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg