Kerala High Court
Ideal Educational Society College Of ... vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited on 26 October, 2016
Author: V Shircy
Bench: Antony Dominic, V Shircy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/24TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WA.No. 2232 of 2016
IN WP(C).34323/2016
--------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 34323/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
26-10-2016
-----
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
----------------------------
IDEAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
IDEAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,
CHITTILAPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REP. BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
MR. MUSAMMIL AL ALI
BY ADVS. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.
2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, MUTHUVARA, THRISSUR - 680 001.
3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY, (CONSTITUTED UNDER
SECTION 127 OF ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003) CC 51/52, NEAR 110 KV SUB
STATION, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SCRETARY - 682019.
BY SRI.P.A.AHAMMED, SC, KSEB - R1 TO R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC
&
SHIRCY V., JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W. A. No.2232 of 2016
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
1. aPetitioner in W.P.(C) No.34323 of 2016 is the appellant and this appeal is filed aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned single Judge on 26.10.2016 by which while granting stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P13, the learned single Judge ordered the appellant to remit 25% of the demand within a period of one month.
2. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The appellant filed the writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P13, whereby the appeal filed by him under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 was rejected. While W. A. No.2232 of 2016 -2- considering his prayer for stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P13, the learned single Judge has imposed the condition requiring the appellant to remit 25% of the demand within one month. However, we find that when the appellant had filed the appeal under Section 127(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 itself, the appellant has already deposited 50% of the amount now demanded. The order impugned does not show that the learned single Judge has taken note of this aspect. Therefore, we are inclined to vacate the order requiring the appellant to remit 25% of the demand as ordered by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of setting aside the direction of the learned single Judge requiring the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount demanded in Ext.P13 as condition for stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P13.
W. A. No.2232 of 2016 -3-
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
SHIRCY V. JUDGE kns/-
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE