IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2377 of 2009 ----------- --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3841/2009 Dated 17/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC.3841/09 ---------------------------------------------------------- THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC.3841/09 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION,DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MANJERI,REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,TALUK OFFICE, ERANAD,MALAPPURAM. R1 & R2 BY STANDIG COUNSEL SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.2377 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th August, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.3841 of 2009, directing the first respondent Kerala State Electricity Board to reconsider the demand made to the appellant Municipality for payment of the balance amount towards electrical energy consumed by the beneficiary committee for supply of drinking water, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. Taking into consideration the undisputed fact that the contract for supply of electrical energy is between the first respondent and the appellant Municipality and merely because it has entered into an agreement with the beneficiary committee, that prima facie, does not absolve the appellant's liability to pay the electricity charges. However, as the appellant/petitioner has raised W.A.No.2377 of 2009 - 2 - certain questions regarding limitation and discontinuation of the Scheme, the learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly directed the first respondent Board to examine both the aspects and take a decision in accordance with law. 3. As such, considering the arguments once again, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we dismiss the writ appeal keeping in tact the liberty as reserved by the learned Single Judge to the appellant. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns