IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 23253 of 2006(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUTHOOT HOTELS PVT. LTD., MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, SABU ZACHARIAS K. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE (URBAN),KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, POWER HOUSE BUILDINGS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB FOR R1TOR3 SMT.P.K.RADHIKA-KSEB FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON 02/11/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 23253/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO. DB2/MUTHOOT HOTEL [P] LTD./ 2004-2005/428 DATED 22.02.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 22.02.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 02.08.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO. 91 471 446542/2466 DATED 18.08.2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE dnc S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 23253 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity enjoying a high tension connection from the Kerala State Electricity Board. Originally, he was required to make a security deposit of ` 7,60,920/- for the connection. He made the security deposit by remitting ` 3,80,460/- by way of demand draft and furnishing a bank guarantee from a nationalised bank for the balance 50%. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed to pay additional cash security of ` 4,28,410/-. Although the petitioner requested permission to give cash security for 50% of the said amount and a bank guarantee for the balance as in the case of the original security deposit, permission was rejected on the ground that, for security below ` 5 lakhs, the whole amount has to be deposited. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “1) call for the records leading to the case and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibit P4, 2) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to remit the additional cash deposit of Rs. 4,28,410/- by way of 50% in cash and 50% by Bank Guarantee issued by a Nationalized Bank.” 2. The contention of the Electricity Board is that as per Condition No.15 of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, w.p.c.23253/06 - : 2 :- for high tension consumers, security deposit shall be remitted by way of cash or demand draft if the security deposit is less than or equal to ` 5 lakhs and only for amounts above ` 5 lakhs, 50% cash deposit and 50% bank guarantee can be accepted. According to them, since in this case, the amount of security deposit is less than ` 5 lakhs, the petitioner is bound to make cash deposit as security. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am of opinion that for deciding as to how the petitioner should furnish additional security, the amount should be reckoned as a whole including the original security furnished and not the additional security alone. Admittedly, the petitioner has furnished security for ` 7,60,920/- originally. Now this ` 4,28,410/- is demanded in addition to that. Therefore, the security deposit for the connection, taken as a whole, is evidently above ` 5 lakhs. For this purpose, the Electricity Board cannot consider the additional security deposit separately. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to give security by depositing 50% and giving a bank guarantee for the balance amount. In fact, by interim order dated 29.8.2006, this Court directed as follows: “SC accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P4 will stand deferred on condition that the petitioner offers a cash security for the amount representing 50% and for the balance, furnish a bank guarantee by a nationalised bank. Both within a period of two weeks from today. In view of my above findings, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order. However, I make it clear that the petitioner shall w.p.c.23253/06 - : 3 :- keep the bank guarantee renewed at all times and in the event of failure to do so, it would be open to the respondents to disconnect the electricity supply of the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge