The petitioner is same, in all these cases. The petitioner was running a Small Scale Industrial unit, in the name and style as M/s 'Aryabhangi' and is engaged in the manufacture of wooden doors and frames. According to the petitioner, the sanctioned connected load was 45 KW and the petitioner sought for enhancement of the connected load to 67 KW. The petitioner's premises were earlier located at Kadavanthra and there was several rounds of litigation as evident from W.P.(C). Nos 14134 & 26911 of 2004.
2. In the course of time, the bills issued to the petitioner were disputed and the proceedings were taken up by way of appeal before the statutory authority. The supply came to be disconnected and subsequently dismantled in the year 2010. Because of the course and events, it is stated that the petitioner was constrained to shift the place of business to elsewhere and is operating the unit at the new place. Later, the petitioner thought to make use of the premises at Kadavanthra by effecting a new construction; for which power supply was necessary and it was accordingly, that the petitioner approached the respondent Board by filing an application for providing 'temporary connection'. The same is not acted upon, referring to pendency of the other two writ petitions and hence all these matters are listed before this Court.
3. In W.P.(C). Nos 14134 & 26911 of 2004, the respondents have filed counter affidavit and a statement; and the pleadings are complete. Prayers raised in W.P.(C). No 14134 of 2004 are in the following terms:
“a. Call for the records leading to Ext.P9 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the respondents 1 and 2 to act on Ext.P2 and P2(a) in the light of the direction contained in Ext.P5 judgment and regularise the connected load to Consumer No.3335 without insisting for any further deposit as mentioned in Ext.P9.
c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the 2nd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P8 representation and to adjust the penalty bills which has already been received in Ext.P6 and P7 to the future amount payable by the petitioner towards the electricity charges.”
The prayers raised in W.P.(C). No. 26911 of 2004 are as given below:
“a. Call for the records leading to Ext.P7 series and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the respondents 1 and 2 to finalise the excess amount paid by the petitioner towards penal charges considering the directions in Ext.P6 order and adjust the same towards the payment of future electricity bill of the petitioner.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned final assessment order, 'Ext.P6' order (produced along with W.P.(C). No. 26911 of 2004) has been passed by the appellate authority, which according to the petitioner stands in favour of the petitioner. The grievance is with regard to Ext.P7 (produced along with W.P.(C). No. 26911 of 2004) issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, whereby the figures have been worked out fixing the liability, which according to the petitioner is not in conformity with Ext.P6 order passed by the appellate authority and hence the challenge.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board submits that the figures have been worked out as directed by the appellate authority and the non consideration of the application preferred by the petitioner as mentioned in W.P.(C). No. 26944 of 2014 for granting temporary connection is because of the arrears outstanding.
6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioner had approached the Board for regularization of the connected load by filing necessary applications. The said applications were also directed to be considered and finalized by this Court, passing judgment at different points of time. Anyhow, the issue with regard to regularization of the connected load does not survive, for the fact that the power supply was disconnected, the connection was dismantled and the unit stands shifted to another location. The petitioner intends to construct a new building in the said premises at Kadavanthra.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by virtue of passage of time and to save time, the petitioner would like to clear the entire outstanding liability so as to facilitate consideration of the application as referred to in W.P.(C). No. 26994 of 2014 for effecting the construction in the concerned premises. In the above circumstance, the petitioner is set at liberty to satisfy the entire outstanding liability as mentioned in Ext.P7 and in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in W.P.(C). No. 26911 of 2004, upon which the application preferred by the petitioner for granting temporary connection as referred to in W.P.(C). No. 26994 of 2014 shall be considered and finalized forthwith; at any within 'one week' from the date of satisfaction of the due amount as above.
All these writ petitions are disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the competent authority for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-