IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 17024 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REGHUVARAN R., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMAYYAN ACHARI, RESIDING AT RAAG, T.C.18/1955, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PROPRIETOR, M/S.UTHARA INDUSTRIES, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST. ENGINEER, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUB ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.17024 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner has a furniture unit, where he is availing power supply, which was being charged at LT VII-B tariff. 2. There was an APTS inspection and Ext.P1 is the mahazar. Following the findings in Ext.P1, Ext.P2 penal bill for Rs.2,19,000/- was issued to the petitioner. Ext.P2 itself show that the tariff applied is LT-VIII and not LT-VII-B. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 objection and the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P5 order reducing his liability to Rs.1,46,000/-. He filed Ext.P6 appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act,2003. 3. Thereafter this writ petition has been filed mainly contending that as he is incapable of complying with the conditions requiring remittance of 50%, his appeal will not WP(c)No.17024/09 2 be considered by the 2nd respondent on merits and this court should consider his grievance in this writ petition. 4. In my view, once a statute has provided an appellate remedy and the said remedy has already been invoked by the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to pursue Ext.P6 appeal which is pending before the 2nd respondent. 5. As regards compliance with the conditions requiring remittance of 50% provided in Section 127 is concerned, case is that he is incapable of complying with the said provision. Of course, that ground by itself will not invalidate the section or exonerate the petitioner from complying with the statutory prescription. Irrespective of the inability raised by the petitioner in this behalf, still a reading of Ext.P2 penal bill shows that the petitioner has been charged under the LT VIII, while the applicable the tariff in the case of the petitioner was LT VII-B. If his liability was quantified applying the applicable tariff, namely, LT VII-B, his liability would have been lesser than what is now fixed in Ext.P5. Taking into account WP(c)No.17024/09 3 the peculiar facts of this case, I direct that, if the petitioner remits 1/3rd of the amount fixed in Ext.P5 along with the fee payable for the appeal, Ext.P6 will be dealt with on merits with notice to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c)No.17024/09 4