By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> Petitioner’s case in brief is as follows :<br /> <br /> Petitioner is a consumer of the respondent vide consumer No.7799. The above said electric connection is for agricultural purpose. The petitioner applied for exemption in the year 1997 and availed exemption from payment of electricity charges. The respondent disconnected electricity connection 3 months before the petition. They had given a notice for payment of Rs.11,847/- on 13/11/07. The petitioner prays for restoring the connection and to cancel the impugned bill amount of Rs.11,847/-. He also claims for compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> 2. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter stating that the petitioner is a consumer of electricity for agriculture. But this consumer No.7799 is not exempted. The Electricity Board had given electricity connection without any expenses, as it is agriculture as per the regulations of the KSEB. But the complainant is liable to pay the electricity charge (according to the discount rate). K.S.E.B is not giving any other exemption other than this. The 3rd respondent , i.e. Agricultural Officer has to take action for availing agricultural exemption. The petitioner is not included in the list of the exempted persons sent by the 3rd respondent. The K.S.E.B. had given invoice at proper time and the arrear bill is for Rs.11,847/- and the complainant is liable to pay the amount. It is prayed that if the petitioner is not entitled for agricultural exemption, direction may be given to collect the arrears with interest and if it is not possible allow to disconnect the connection completely and follow for further proceedings.<br /> <br /> 3. Respondent 3 filed counter to the effect that the petitioner has not filed application under the reimbursement scheme come to existence on 1/4/98 and not entitled for exemption. After that as per the High Court also, persons can submit application for exemption. It was also not done by the petitioner. So he is not entitled and dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4.On going through the versions we think that usual direction maybe given. The petitioner had not got a chance to know about this new programme. The petitioner’s belief may be that he is exempted as he had applied earlier and there is no chance for applying again.<br /> <br /> 5.In the result, the complaint is allowed and the complainant is directed to file an application before the 3rd respondent, the Agricultural Officer concerned seeking exemption granted to agriculturists within one month from today and the 3rd respondent is directed to dispose of the application within one month from the date of receipt of the same. It is to be remembered that if the complainant is entitled to have the exemption granted by the Government Notifications and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the batch of cases dated 26/7/2002, the complainant is entitled to get exemption from the inception and in that case his name will be included in the list of exempted persons sent to the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to wait for the orders of the 3rd respondent and they shall not take any coercive steps against the complainant pending decisions of the 3rd respondent. If he is not entitled for exemption the petitioner shall pay the bill amount within two months. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 18th day of June 2008.<br />