The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exts. P6 and P7.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to reconsider the demand made pursuant to Ext, P6, after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard.
iii. Pass such other orders which this Honourable Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. When the matter came up for consideration on 21.10.2014, the following interim order was passed :
“Respondents are directed to get instructions and to file a statement.
Coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10,000/- within one week. Post after 10 days.”
3. It is stated that the said condition has already been satisfied. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of which are relevant, which read as follows :
6. The averments in paragraphs three to nine of the writ petition are misleading. The actual state of facts are narrated as follows :
From February 2012 onwards the BB (Broad Band) usage was very high and hence huge bills were generated in respect of the Broad Band connection.
The above facts would show that the Broad Band usage by the petitioner was in high rate and there were no defects in respect of the bills.
7. Several notices including the one dated 21.03.2013 were sent as part of outstanding pursuit and revenue recovery intimations were issued to the petitioner. The revenue recovery intimation was issued on 22.03.2013. Complaints were examined in detail and found that all the bills are correct as usages verified and found correct. No anomaly was noticed by the establishment and this fact was intimated to the petitioner. She was asked to attend the Permanent Lok Adalat held on 20.11.2013. The establishment was prepared to grant some discount. But the petitioner did not attend the Lok Adalat. The establishment was compelled to issue the demand notice and was constrained to initiate revenue recovery proceedings. When contacted on phone the petitioner told the establishment that she will approach the court and will act according to the decision of the court. Therefore there are no latches on the part of the establishment.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only relief now pressed before this Court is to give an opportunity of hearing with reference to Ext. P5 reply submitted by the petitioner and to have the matter finalized accordingly.
5. The learned standing counsel on the otherhand submits that correctness of the facts and figures have been clearly stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit and that there is no merit in the grievance projected from the part of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner was intimated over telephone as to the adalath scheduled on 20th November, 2013; but the petitioner did not turn up on that date. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that, though there was an intimation over telephone as to the holding of adalath, the date was never informed to the petitioner.
6. In any view of the matter, considering the limited extent of relief sought for, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext. P5 objection submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be done, at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is for the petitioner to satisfy the balance liability, if any, which shall be subject to further orders to be passed. Recovery proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)