Tanish Myzone Supermarket India ... vs The Kerala State Electricity ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21642 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
    TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 28391 OF 2020
PETITIONER :

          TANISH MYZONE SUPERMARKET INDIA LIMITED
          VENNALA, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
          SUBISHA SURENDRAN, W/O T. SURENDRAN,
          AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT METHAR SILVERLAWNS,
          MAROTTICHODU, KOCHI,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

          BY ADVS.
          BABU S. NAIR
          SMT.SMITHA BABU



RESPONDENTS :

    1     THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (K.S.E.B),
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAAN,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.

    2     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
          K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM NORTH,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 018.

    3     THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
          K.S.E.B.ELECTRICAL SECTION, VENNALA,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 028.

          BY ADV SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN

          BY SC FOR KSEB ADV.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 28391 OF 2020
                                       2




                     BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                     W.P.(C) No.28391 of 2020
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
              Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2021



                                 JUDGMENT

Petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 demand notices

issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board. Petitioner is running two

supermarkets. It was served with the electricity bills for the period

during Covid-19 restrictions. Petitioner has challenged the electricity

bills in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The remedy of the petitioner is in fact elsewhere. A

writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained challenging

electricity bills. Still, having regard to the fact that this Court had

admitted this writ petition and granted an interim stay on condition

that petitioner deposits an amount equivalent to 50% of the demand

in Ext.P2 and P4, I am of the view that this writ petition can be

disposed of granting a breathing time to the petitioner to repay the

balance of the amount demanded in Ext.P2 and Ext.P4.

3. Taking into reckoning the circumstances, especially

those relating to the Covid-19 restrictions, in relation to opening of

shops and commercial establishments, petitioner shall repay the WP(C) NO. 28391 OF 2020

entire balance amount due under Ext.P2 and P4 in six equated

monthly instalments, the first of which shall be payable on or before

30.11.2021. The benefit of this judgment shall not enure to the

petitioner unless the petitioner continues to pay the regular

electricity charges without any default. In the event of default of any

one instalment directed in this judgment, the respondent Board shall

be free to proceed in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM

.

WP(C) NO. 28391 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28391/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.11.2020 IN CONSUMER NO 17155 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND CUM DISCONNECTION NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10.11.2020

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 27.10.2020 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND CUM DISCONNECTION NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 1.12.2020