IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 40632 of 2003(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.S.NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.C.SAYED MOHAMMED RAWTHER THENNAMMACKAL, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRIVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SENIOR ASSISTANT IN CHARGE, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PEERUMADE. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PEERUMADE. ADV.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.9.2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 40632/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.3.12.2003 BY R2. P2. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.NIL BEFORE R3. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.40632 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. He has got a house connection as well as connection to a shed, where cardamom is cured in his plantation. He is aggrieved by Ext.P1 demand for arrears of electricity charges, by which, an amount of Rs.34,260/- has been demanded from the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the same in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, petitioner's house and shed are situated in an interior part of the district located about 1.5 kms. from the nearest civilization and therefore, bills are seldom served on the petitioner in time. Whenever the petitioner received bills, he paid the same promptly. The petitioner now takes the contention that the petitioner has been charged for electricity at commercial rates, whereas curing of cardamom is an agricultural activity and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges only at the tariff rate applicable to agricultural purposes. The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashing of Ext.P1 demand. 3. I have heard parties. 4. Immediately after receiving Ext.P1 the petitioner admittedly has submitted Ext.P2 representation. In the same he has 2 not raised a claim that he is using the electricity for agricultural purposes. His only request therein was that he must be given remission in electricity charges and must be permitted to pay the amounts in 12 equal monthly instalments. Therefore, obviously, the contention raised in the writ petition that he is using the electricity for agricultural purposes is clearly an after-thought. The petitioner himself admits in the writ petition that he was not getting bills regularly. He has no contention that he has not consumed electricity for which arrears are demanded by Ext.P1. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge