IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 15453 of 2001(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PARAMOUNT TOWER (DISSOLVED), TOWN HALL ROAD, KOZHIKODE-1, REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER AND CO-OWNER K.ANAS ABDUL KHADER. BY ADV. MR.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR MR.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CENTRAL, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 15453/2001-M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23/04/1997. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25/06/1998. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE BILL NO.23051 DATED 11/02/1999. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE BILL NO.21376 DATED 13/05/1999. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE BILL NO.47311 DATED 14/06/1999. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE BILL NO.47319 DATED 13/10/1999. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE BILL NO.2244 DATED 09/02/2001. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.HTB.29/2937 DATED 5/2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 15453 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T From the cause title of the original petition, it appears that the same is filed by a partnership firm, which was dissolved, represented by the Managing Partner and Co-owner K. Anas Abdul Khader. The same is a contradiction in terms. If the partnership has been dissolved, there cannot be any partnership firm at all who can file an original petition. If there is no partnership firm, there cannot be any managing partner. Therefore, the original petition is not properly constituted. 2. The original petition is filed challenging Ext. P8 demand for arrears of current charges with a threat of dismantling the electrical installation, if arrears is not paid within the time stipulated. In the body of the original petition, although the petitioner has said so many things about so many things, ultimately, in paragraph 5 of the original petition, the petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has been made to pay excess fixed charges which, if adjusted against Ext. P8 bill, there would not be any dues at all. In the grounds, he has a totally different case to the effect that he has paid all electricity dues and therefore any further demand is unsustainable. The prayer is not for either. The prayer is to quash Ext. P8 and to adjust the excess payment of current charges paid towards fixed charges payable by the petitioner. From the same, it is clear that the petitioner has no O.P. No.15453/01 -: 2 :- consistent case. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.