The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P1 mahazar, Ext.P2 and P2(a) disconnection notices and Ext.P3 penal invoice,
ii) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 3rd respondent to restore the power supply to the petitioner in respect of consumer Nos.LCN 27/6480 and 8713, without insisting for the amounts demanded as per Ext.P3, P3 (a) and the compounding charges,
iii) Pass such other orders which this Honourable Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the course pursued by the respondent Board, leading to disconnection of the power supply, is per se wrong and illegal in all respects. It is stated that, the observations and inference as given in Ext.P1 site mahazar cannot lead to fixation of liability to an unconscionable extent as given in Ext.P3, requiring the petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rs.4,97,588/- (Rupees Four lakhs ninety seven thousand five hundred and eighty eight only). The learned counsel also points out that, the so called unauthorised extension was taken only to facilitate uninterrupted power W.P.(C) No.31031 of 2014 2 supply, making use of generator and not in the way, as put forth from the part of the authorities of the Board, as given in Ext.P1. The petitioner has explained the position on receipt of Ext.P3, by submitting Ext.P4 and the same requires to be considered and finalised, but the power supply came to be disrupted and hence this writ petition. It is stated that, because of the course and proceedings, the running of the Resort (where the 'HT connection' has been provided) and the Beer Parlour (where 'LT connection' has been provided) has come to a stand still.
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits that, the petitioner has indulged in diversion of energy, making use of the same for unauthorised purpose and the 'modus operandi', is very much discernible from Ext.P1 mahazar itself. This Court, however does not intend to adjudicate the disputed question of fact, as the provisional assessment is still to be finalised by the concerned respondent. However, since the power supply stands disconnected, there will be a direction to the respondents to have it restored, on condition that the amount demanded as per Ext.P3 is provisionally satisfied by the petitioner. On remittance of the said amount and W.P.(C) No.31031 of 2014 3 restoration charges, if any, the power supply under both the connections shall be restored forthwith, which shall be without prejudice to finalisation of the adjudication proceedings. Final orders shall be passed after considering the explanation preferred by the petitioner by way of Ext.P4 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
4. In view of the course to be pursued as above, steps for realising the compounding fee, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till finalisation of the proceedings as above, unless the same is opted for by the petitioner.
The submission made by the learned counsel, that the unauthorised extension of the line has already been cut off/ removed, is also recorded.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp