IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19797 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.K.IBRAHIM, ADAKAYIL HOUSE, CHAKKALAKKAL ROAD, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-15. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN SRI.KHADEEJA YOUSUF RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDUDHY BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST.ENGINEER/SUB ENGINEER IN CHARGE ELECTRICAL SECTION, THEVARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 19797 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent Sub Engineer in charge of the Electrical Section, Thevara demanding a sum of Rs.69,558/- after having cleared 1/3 amount in respect of the previous liability ordered to be satisfied as per Ext.P1 interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) 10688/2007. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the respondent Board had demanded earlier, to satisfy a huge liability, when the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing WP(C) 10688/2007, wherein Ext.P1 interim order was passed on 27.03.2007, directing the petitioner to satisfy 1/3 of the disputed amount and to file detailed objection against the bill; on which event, the matter was directed to be finalised after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within one month from the date of filing the objections. The learned counsel submits that, the said Writ Petition is still pending and the petitioner has already filed a statement of objections as borne by Ext.P2 dated 02.04.2007. It is also contended in paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition that, after the hearing, nothing was heard till Ext.P3 has now been served as a bolt from the blue, demanding huge amount, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court. 2 WP(C) No. 19797/2010 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board submits that, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the case projected by the petitioner, who has not revealed the actual facts and figures. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 objections and satisfied 1/3 of the disputed liability, when the concerned authority considered the matter including Ext.P2 objections and final assessment order was passed in compliance with the direction given by this Court vide Ext.P1, and a copy of the assessment order was served to the petitioner directly on 25.04.2007. It is also stated by the learned standing counsel that, in the course of the hearing held by the concerned authority, the petitioner rather conceded his guilt and admitted the charge; seeking to show maximum leniency. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, copy of the assessment order was very much served to the petitioner against proper receipt and it was after receipt of the same, that the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the averments raised in the Writ Petition are based on the memory of the petitioner, which is stated deplorably poor and hence the mistake, if any. In any view of the matter, the fact remains that the concerned authority, pursuant to Ext.P1 order has passed the final assessment order, which however has not been subjected to challenge and the same has become 3 WP(C) No. 19797/2010 final. It was accordingly, that the figures have been worked out as given in Ext.P3, showing the total demand as Rs.1,03,955/- out of which 1/3 has already been satisfied (to an extent of Rs.34,397/-) and the balance amount has been demanded; which forms the figures shown in Ext.P3 demanding a sum of Rs.69,558/-. The learned standing counsel also submits that, the liability was fixed because of the wilful tampering of the meter and theft of energy by way of dubious means as clearly given in the concerned mahazar and that the assessment has been finalised after taking note of the entire facts and figures and the objections raised by the petitioner; which does not call for any interference, particularly when the assessment finalised three years before has not been subjected to challenge. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit to warrant interference. It is for the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent by filing objections, if any, as required in Ext.P3 and pursue the remedy, if any, available in accordance with law. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc