Kerala High Court
M/S. Dtdc Express Ltd vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 11 November, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAYOF FEBRUARY 2016/28TH MAGHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 6011 of 2016 (B)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
M/S. DTDC EXPRESS LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE AT DTDC HOUSE,
NO.3, VICTORIA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 047,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
HARSHAN P., DTDC EXPRESS LTD.,APM BUILDINGS,
NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, COCHIN-18,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.G.SURESH,
SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR),
SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ,
SRI.V.HARISH.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, CENTRAL,
ERNAKULAM-682 018.
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B.,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, CENTRAL,
ERNAKULAM-682 018.
BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 6011 of 2016 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR POWER ALLOCATION
DATED 11/11/2008.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2016 BEARING
NO.BB/CL/RAO/2015-16/62/11-01-2016.
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE BILL DEMANDING HE PAYMENT OF
RS.6,53,159/- DATED 11/01/2016.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN
BEFORE THE HON'BLE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL
FORUM AT KALAMASSERY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ON 11/02/2016.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
rs.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.6011 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of February 2016
JUDGMENT
The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2 order, passed against the petitioner and Ext.P3 bill, that was issued to the petitioner demanding an amount of Rs.6,53,159/- towards alleged unauthorised load, availed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that against Ext.P2 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 complaint before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent board.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find from the nature of Ext.P2 order that, the order is one passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. Accordingly, the petitioner would have to prefer an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, against Ext.P2 order. The maintainability of the appeal is conditional, upon the petitioner paying 50% of the amount W.P.(c).No.6011 of 2016 : 2 : confirmed against him by Ext.P2 order and Ext.P3 bill. Accordingly, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:
i) If the petitioner prefers an appeal against Ext.P2 order and Ext.P3 bill, under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, by paying 50% of the amount demanded in Ext.P3 bill along with the appeal, then the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner.
ii) The electricity connection, which is stated to have been disconnected by the respondents, shall be restored forthwith, on condition that the petitioner pays the 50% amount as directed, within the period of one week, as mentioned above.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sm/