Kerala High Court
Alangadan Kunjavaru vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 4 January, 2011
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10 of 2011(A)
1. ALANGADAN KUNJAVARU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
3. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,
4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY)
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :04/01/2011
O R D E R
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.10 of 2011
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. He had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.22518 of 2009 in this Court challenging Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the second respondent, rejecting the appeals filed by him against Exts.P2 and P3 memos demanding payment of various amounts towards energy charges. By Ext.P8 judgment delivered on 7.8.2009, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner has filed W.A.No.593 of 2010 canvassing the correctness of Ext.P8 judgment and the said writ appeal is pending. In the meanwhile, fifth respondent issued Exts.P9 and P10 demand notices under sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act demanding payment of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 and P3. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Exts.P9 and P10 demand notices mainly on the ground that in view of the pendency of W.A.No.593 of 2010, the demand notices ought not have been issued.
2. By Exts.P9 and P10 respondents are only seeking to recover the amounts covered by Exts.P6 and P7 orders. The challenge to the said orders was repelled by a learned single Judge of this Court by Ext.P8 judgment. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot challenge Exts.P9 and P10 demand notices. The W.P.(C) No.10 of 2011 : 2 : remedy of the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the demand made during the pendency of the writ appeal is to move an appropriate application in the writ appeal seeking stay of recovery of the amounts covered by Exts.P6 and P7 orders. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move an appropriate application for stay in W.A.No.593 of 2010 which is stated to be pending in this Court.
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
nj.