High CourtsSingle Bench(2003) 03 KL CK 0050

Lekshmikutty vs Kerala State Electricity Board

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 24 March 2003 · Citation: AIR 2003 Ker 283

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J
CASE NUMBER
OP. No. 9791 of 2003 (N)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 360 words

M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.—The petitioner is a widow and she is the consumer of KSEB for residential purpose. Her daughter, a handicapped person started telephone booth in one of the rooms of the house, which prompted the KSEB to revise the tariff for particular connection. The result was a sudden spurt from Rs. 493/- mentioned in Ext. P6 bill to Rs. 2,747/- mentioned in Ext. P7. The petitioner has filed an appeal against Ext. P7 which is pending before the 2nd respondent as Ext. P8. The prayer of the petitioner is to keep in abeyance the recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext. P7 and also a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal within a reasonable time bearing in mind the fact that the KSEB itself has issued Notification No. BO (FM) No. 1462/02/TRAC/TO-1/2002 dated 24.10.2002 which provides that domestic consumers covered by a particular Notification would be allowed to utilise the electrical energy in some portion of their residence for their own use for purposes other than domestic as defined under LT-1 when such connected load does not exceeded 20% of the total connected load in the premises. The petitioner''s case is that the consumption for the booth is confined to connected load of any 240 watts out of the total connected load of 3400 watts and as such the consumption in the booth is only less than 10% of the total consumption.

2.

In the circumstances, I close the Original Petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P8 taking a humane approach as is justify warranted in the facts of this case and with opportunity to the petitioner to be heard and also in the light of the Board''s orders governing the point including that seen in the aforecited order dated 24.10.2002. This will be done within one month from the date on which a copy of this judgment is produced before the 2nd respondent. Until then and for a period of two weeks thereafter the petitioner shall be charged at the domestic rate only and proceedings for recovery of the amounts mentioned in Ext. P7 will stand stayed.