K.V.BHUVANENDRAN Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. Suit was one for injunction. After trial, suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the decree of dismissal he has preferred this appeal.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is the Proprietor of an oil mills, namely, Ambili Oil Mills, situate in North Aryad, Alappuzha. Executing a minimum guarantee agreement with the first defendant Electricity Board, plaintiff got electric supply for functioning his oil mills. He could run the factory only for six months and had to close it down due to scarcity of working capital, and as such some delay occurred in paying the minimum charges guaranteed to the Electricity Board, according to plaintiff. Coercive steps were initiated by the defendants to realise exorbitant sum, as if such amount was due from him towards the minimum charge in terms of the agreement. Plaintiff was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.1,27,377/ - towards the dues alleged threatening him disconnection of electric supply to his establishment. Steps so taken by the defendants are illegal, was his case to seek a decree of injunction. Second defendant, an officer working in the first defendant Board filed a written statement disputing the allegations imputed in the plaint. Among other contentions the defendant also challenged the maintainability of the suit. Whatever amounts legally due to the defendants alone was sought to be recovered in terms of Ext.B1 agreement, was the case of the defendant.

(3.) I heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for appellant confined his submissions to urge for reservation of the right of appellant despite the dismissal of his suit, to move an appeal before the competent authority as provided under Clause 48 of Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 to raise his objections over the demand made by the Board towards the charges under the minimum guarantee agreement.