M. HAMZA v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

O.P.No.11988/1999 .2amount if any already paid in 15 equal monthly instalments commencing from 12.10.1998. The State Commission also directed that if three installments are defaulted consecutively, the balance will carry interest at 24%. The petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed in Ext.P1. Instead he sent Ext.P2 letter dated15.2.1998 to the 2nd respondent stating that he received a copy of Ext.P1 belatedly and hence he was not able to remit the instalmentson the due dates. The petitioner also sought a clarification as to the date on which the first instalment has to be paid and the amount payable in each instalment. By Ext.P3 letter dated 2.1.1999, the2nd respondent informed the petitioner that as he has defaulted payment of the instalments in accordance with the directions in Ext.P1 order passed by of the Kerala State Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission, he is liable to pay the balance amount due from him in lump along with interest at 24% per annum. Thepetitioner was also informed that if he fails to remit the balance amount of Rs.29,241/= on or before 12.1.1999, the service connection will be disconnected without further notice. The petitioner has in this original petition filed on 17.5.1999 challenged Ext.P3 and prayed for a direction to the respondents to restore the electricity connection. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the O.P.No.11988/1999 .32nd respondent to restore the electricity connection. It is submitted that as the petitioner did not remit the arrears, electricity supply was also disconnected.

When the original petition came up for admission on 18.5.1999this Court passed an interim order directing restoration of electricity connection to the petitioner if he remits the arrears in terms of Ext.P1 upto 1st May, 1999. The learned Standing Counselappearing for the respondents brought to my notice that the petitioner has not complied with the said direction as well. He also submitted that this fact has been set out in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and that the petitioner has not chosen to file a reply affidavit disputing or denying the said averment.

The bill in question relates to the year 1992-94. More than 14years have passed thereafter. By Ext.P1 the Kerala State ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission while rejecting the challenge made by the petitioner to the adjustment invoices granted him an opportunity to pay the amount in fifteen equal monthly instalments commencing from 12.10.1998. The petitioner has not chosen to avail O.P.No.11988/1999 .4the said benefit. He has also not remitted the instalments upto 1stMay, 1999 as directed by this Court in the interim order passed on18.5.1999. The petitioner has not challenged Ext.P1 in this original petition. It is evident from the conduct of the petitioner that his attempt has been to avoid payment of the energy charges payable to the Board on one pretext or the other. The conduct of the petitioner in failing to comply with the directions issued in Ext.P1and the interim order passed by this Court on 18.5.1999 disentitleshim to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I therefore decline jurisdiction and dismiss the original petition. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.cl O.P.No.11988/1999 .5 P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.NO.11988 OF 1999-B JUDGMENT 13th February, 2008.