These two writ petitions are filed by one and the same petitioner challenging the demand for payment of arrears of electricity charges. The petitioner was a High Tension (HT) industrial consumer with respect to a chemical industry established on availing loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation. The unit was taken over by the KFC under the State Financial Corporation Act during 1995. The electric connection in question was dismantled on 07.11.1995. Subsequently, revenue recovery steps were initiated for realising arrears to the tune of `6,72,749/-. Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice in WP(C) No.27083/2010 was challenged in a writ petition filed before this court in the year 2001. The petitioner contended that, prior to take over of the unit by the KFC he had applied for changing the category of the electric connection from High Tension (HT) to Low Tension (LT). It was contended that if the change as requested would have allowed, the arrears would have reduced considerably. The petitioner also disputed the demand for payment of huge interest/surcharge. In Ext.P3 judgment this court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent Board through a proper representation and the Board was directed to consider the grievances of the petitioner, after affording opportunity of personal hearing. The revenue recovery steps initiated was directed to be kept in abeyance, in order to facilitate the Board to consider representation if any submitted by the petitioner. The Board after consideration of the grievance had issued Ext.P4 order (in WP(C) 27083/2010) permitting the petitioner to clear the arrears under the 'One Time Settlement Scheme'. Ext.P4 order passed by the Board is under challenge in WP(C) No.27083/2010, mainly contending that the Board had failed in adverting to the contentions and in taking any appropriate decision based on challenges raised against the demand. This court while admitting WP(C) No.27083/2010 had granted an interim order against recovery subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of `2,00,000/-. It is submitted that the petitioner had complied with the condition, within the time stipulated. 2. WP(C) No.4091/2014 is filed challenging Ext.P14 notice issued by the 3rd respondent. In Ext.P14 demand it is mentioned that, the principal amount of energy charges in arrears is `2,64,236/- and including interest the total amount due is `13,23,830/-. In Ext.P14, the petitioner is given an option to settle the arrears under 'One Time Settlement Scheme' by paying a sum of Rs.4,09,786/-. Contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No.4091/2014 is that the petitioner is not even liable to pay the amount demanded under Ext.P14. It is evident from Ext.P13 that the entire arrears was recalculated threating the petitioner as a consumer under LT tariff, with effect from 01.03.1995 and the date of dismantling was assumed as on 08.09.1996. Therefore it is evident that the principal amount demanded earlier was reduced considerably. In Ext.P13 also the 3rd respondent had informed the petitioner that he is entitled to avail benefits of the OTS Scheme introduced through Board Order dated 31.10.2013. But the petitioner has not chosen to avail such benefits.
3. On an active consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, this court do not find any legal ground existing to interfere with the impugned demand. It is evident that the request of the petitioner to consider him under LT category was accepted with effect from the date of receipt of application. Despite the repeated offers made to avail the benefit of OTS, the petitioner had not chosen to settle the arrears.
4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, these writ petitions deserve no merit. However, it is made clear that petitioner will be at liberty to avail benefits of the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' if any in force at present. So also the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Board seeking waiver of surcharge (interest) in case such Scheme is not in force at present.
Consideration of such request will depend upon conditions if any imposed with respect to payment if any insisted by the Board. The amounts if any paid pursuant to the interim order passed by this court shall be appropriated against the dues under such settlement if any arrived.
These writ petitions are disposed of subject to observations as contained hereinabove.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pn