The petitioners were enjoying exemption from payment of electricity charges with respect to electric connection provided for agricultural purposes. When the petitioners were issued with bills claiming payment of electricity charges, during the year 2008, the petitioners have approached this court in WP(C). No.8574/2008. The said writ petition was disposed of through Ext.P3 judgment by noticing the interim order already issued on 13.3.2008 and stating that if any of the petitioners is certified to be eligible for free electricity by the Agricultural Officer of the local 'Krishi Bhavan' and if the said certificate is received by the concerned Electricity Board office, the power supply shall not be disconnected. If any supply has already been disconnected, reconnection should be made on the basis of such certification. In Ext.P3 judgment this court directed that, if the petitioners are eligible to get exemption under the relevant Government orders, the same shall be extended on the basis of the certificate of the Agricultural Officer concerned on re-examining the matter and by passing appropriate orders within 3 months from the date of receipt of such judgment. Till such decision is taken, this court had interdicted with disconnection of supply. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that, despite production of Ext.P3 judgment, the 2nd respondent had neither granted exemption certificate nor had rejected the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled for exemption from payment of electricity charges. It is mentioned that, the 2nd respondent had informed the petitioners that since the total extent of the land is more than 2 Hectors. The petitioners are not eligible. Petitioners rely upon Ext.P1 possession certificate for pointing out that the total extent held together with all the petitioners is only 3.7991 Hectors. According to the petitioners, it is a joint holding, which has to be divided into 3 shares on the basis of the deeming provisions contained in the Kerala Hindu Joint Family System (Abolition) Act 1976. It is pointed out that the 1st respondent had issued Exts.P5 and P6 letters to the petitioners stating that the 2nd respondent has not issued any communication with respect to eligibility of the petitioners and therefore the petitioners were called upon to pay huge arrears in the respective connection. It is challenging the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in not complying with the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment and also challenging the demand made under Exts.P5 and P6 notices, this writ petition is filed.
3. In a statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is mentioned that pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.R1(c) letter stating that no exemption was granted to the petitioners. Therefore the impugned notices were issued requiring them to make payment of the arrears.
4. While considering the rival contentions this court takes notice of the specific direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment requiring the 2nd respondent to conduct re-examination in the matter and to pass appropriate orders with respect to eligibility of the petitioners to get exemption from payment of electricity charges under the agricultural connection. Ext.R1(c) letter issued by the 2nd respondent reveals that the 2nd respondent had informed the petitioners that their application for exemption can be considered only if the extent of the land is below 2 Hectors. It is mentioned that the petitioners have not turned up after such intimation. But when this court had issued a specific direction with respect to re-examaination of the question of eligibility, the 2nd respondent is bound to take a decision, either by granting the certificate of exemption or by rejecting the claim. But in the case at hand the 2nd respondent has not complied with the specific direction, despite lapse of the time limit stipulated in the judgment. Since Ext.P3 judgment is binding on to the parties concerned, there is no justification for the 1st respondent to insist upon payment of the alleged arrears, before taking a decision with respect to eligibility of the petitioners based on the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment. Therefore this court is of the opinion that interest of justice can be served by directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision on the aspect of eligibility of the petitioners for exemption, in compliance with the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment, without any further delay. It is only just and proper to the 1st respondent to keep in abeyance further steps pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 until such decision is taken.
4. Therefore the writ petition is hereby disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision in view of the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment, after affording opportunity to the petitioners to raise all available contentions before the 2nd respondent. A decision in this regard shall be taken after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. Till such time a decision is taken as directed above, recovery steps proposed under Exts.P5 and P6 shall be kept in abeyance.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
pmn/