`The petitioner had approached the 6th respondent in a complaint against the demand for arrears of electricity charges for the period from 2/1998 to 4/2003. The arrear bill was issued on the premise that the Meter was remaining faulty for the said period. An amount of Rs. 46,155/- along with interest was demanded. Before approaching the 6th respondent the said bill was challenged in a writ petition filed before this court as OP.No.39022/2004. This court directed the 1st respondent to consider the grievance and to pass appropriate orders. But the 1st respondent had issued an order only on 25.6.2010, that too to remit an amount of Rs.62,801/-, with interest. Complaining that the 1st respondent has not considered the grievance voiced and that he has not applied mind in taking such a decision, the 6th respondent was approached. In Ext.P3 order the 6th respondent found that the Electric Meter connected to the premise was remaining faulty from 10/1997 to 11/1998. The replaced meter was again changed on 7.3.2003. It was further found that the average consumption for the period from 10/1999 to 12/2000 indicated 177.33 units per month. Therefore the 6th respondent ordered to recalculate the amount at 175 units per month from February 1998 to April 2003, with interest. Ext. P1 is the consequential demand issued which was accompanied by Ext. P2 calculation statement . Alleging that Exts. P1 and P2 are not in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P3 order, the petitioner again approached the 6th respondent in Ext. P4 complaint. Since the 6th respondent has not accepted and registered, the complaint this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate direction 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is contended that Ext.P1 was issued strictly in accordance with the direction contained in Ext.P3 order. It is stated that Ext.P1 was issued only after getting approval from the Accounts Officer (Law) of the KSEB. Ext.R1(b) is the copy of the letter forwarded by the Assistant Executive Engineer concerned to the Accounts Officer (Law) KSEB. It indicates that the 3rd respondent had forwarded various statements calculating the amount in different manner. The 3rd statement forwarded to the Accounts Officer contains calculation in accordance with Ext.P3 order, done for 175 units per month without interest. The 3rd statement appended along with Ext.R1(b) indicates that the charges for the period from 2/1998 to 4/2003 is calculated at 175 units per month and 350 units bi-monthly for certain periods. It is mentioned that the amounts already remitted were given credit. The said statement exactly tallies with the calculation statement appended along with Ext.P1, which is produced as Ext.P2. On a perusal of Ext.P2 as well as the statement appended along with Ext.R1(b) it is revealed that the demand is made calculating the charges strictly in accordance with the direction contained in Ext.P3. Therefore the grievance voiced against Ext.P1 does not deserve merit. That being the position Ext. P4 deserves no consideration by the 6th respondent. Since Ext.P3 had attained finality the petitioner is liable to pay the amount demanded under Ext.P1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that all along there was stay against collection of the amount, during the pendency of the writ petition. Hence it is prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to remit the amount covered under Ext.P1 in instalments, without paying any interest. Considering the fact that the dispute was pending adjudication before this court, I am inclined to grant such a relief.
4. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is allowed to make the payment of the amounts covered under Ext.P1 demand in 3 equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.5.2014 and on or before the last day of the 2 succeeding months.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/