ANEES Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the Managing Partner of M/s.Sharjah Towers, a firm which stands, at present, dissolved and closed. According to the petitioner, now he is the absolute owner in possession of the said 'Sharjah Towers'. The matter, in issue, involved in this writ petition relates to the electric power allocation to the said commercial complex by the 1st respondent. The petitioner had applied for a High Tension connection to the above said commercial complex. According to the petitioner, after remitting all the requisite amounts demanded by the 1st respondent, for power allocation, the petitioner received a communication dated 21.11.2003, to pay an amount of Rs.6,46,800/-, prescribed as minimum charges, and an amount of Rs.19,719/- towards penalty for the same. The aforesaid demand was challenged by the petitioner in W.P(C).No.24393/04, which culminated in Ext.P22 judgment. W.P(C).No.24393/04 was filed challenging Exts.P15, P17 and P21 bills. This Court, vide Ext.P22 judgment, quashed the said bills and directed the 5th respondent to issue fresh bills and to give credit to the amount already paid by him. Pursuant to that judgment, the 6th respondent vide Ext.P23 order dated 14.10.2009 directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.6,28,145/- on or before 29.10.2009, failing which, the petitioner was informed that the service connection would be disconnected, without further notice. Hence, Ext.P23 is challenged in this writ petition, as highly arbitrary and illegal and this writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) According to the petitioner, in Ext.P22 judgment, after quashing Exts.P15, P17 and P21 bills, this Court held that the minimum guaranteed charges due to the respondents would be governed by Clause 9(a)(i) and Clause 25 of Ext.P8 agreement. As per Clause 25, charges payable as minimum will have to be paid even if power is not availed of within 2 months from the date on which the readiness of the Board to supply power to the consumer is intimated. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P12, he was required to remit the service connection charges and avail electricity. But the amount was not quantified. Even though the amount was not quantified, by Ext.P14, the petitioner had remitted Rs.1,40,850/- as informed by the respondents, on enquiry. As per Clause 25, the charges payable as minimum will have to be paid even if power is not availed of within two months from the date on which the readiness of the Board to supply power to the consumer is intimated. Here, he was intimated to pay the minimum guaranteed charges on 21.6.2003 and he paid the amount on 1.10.2003 and thereby expressed his readiness to avail power. Therefore, he is liable to pay the minimum charges from 21.8.2003 to 1.10.2003 and it was incumbent upon the respondents to give electric connection immediately on receipt of the said amount of Rs.1,40,850/- on 1.10.2003. But the respondents have not provided service connection, even after the payment of such charges. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any amount as minimum guaranteed charges under Clause 25 of Ext.P8 after 1.10.2003. After 1.10.2003, there was no demand from the part of the respondents to pay any amount for service connection until Ext.P15 and by Ext.P15 the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,46,800/- with Rs.19,719/- as penalty and this Court quashed the said demand. So, the respondents could have provided service connection to the petitioner on receipt of the amount under Ext.P14. In spite of providing the service connection on receipt of the amount under Ext.P14, they withheld the power supply without any sufficient reason. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any amount after Ext.P14, particularly, in view of the fact that Ext.P15 demand was quashed by this Court. There is no basis for claiming minimum guaranteed charges upto 24.8.2004 the date of passing of the interim order by this Court directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs. This Court in Ext.P22 judgment directed the respondents to work out the amount on the basis of the observations made in the said judgment. In view of the observations made in Ext.P22 judgment, no claim can be raised against the petitioner as minimum guaranteed charges after 1.10.2003. But, now the respondents have claimed minimum guaranteed charges for the period from August 2003 to August 2004 as service charges and demanded an amount of Rs.6,28,145/-.