IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13157 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 1 ---------------- K.SUGATHAN,PROPRIETOR,M/S.MIL CO MILLS, RESIDING AT AVANAVANCHERY MULIYIL, ATTINGAL,CHIRAYINKEEZHU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, AVANAVANCERHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) CHIRAYINKEEZHU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.13157 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. This order shows that revenue recovery proceedings are initiated against the petitioner for realisation of Rs.30,520/-. As is evident from Ext.P1, supply to the petitioner's premises was disconnected with effect from 27/10/1993, and dismantling was on 30/10/1999. The balance arrears of Rs.30,520/- now claimed is for the period from October, 1993 to October, 1999, which is the period between the date of disconnection and the date of dismantle. Admittedly, no supply has been effected during the aforesaid period. In the circumstances, unless the Board is authorised by any of the provisions of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy or the Supply Act enabling them to realise the dues, there is absolutely no justification for the demand. 3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents, who has obtained instructions in the matter. WP(C) No.13157/2009 -2- 4. Although, he has confirmed that the demand is for the period subsequent to the date of disconnection, he could only show me Clause 34 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, which was prevailing at the relevant time to justify the demand made against the petitioner. This provision, even according to him, enables only realisation of the dues for six months. If that be so, the arrears claimed, and the consequent revenue recovery action initiated against the petitioner cannot be sustained. For that reason, the demand made against the petitioner as evidenced from Ext.P1 will stand set aside, leaving it open to the respondents to realise dues for the period prescribed in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg