IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33896 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.S.SURENDRAN, AMBATTU HOUSE, PEZHUMPARA P.O., BOUNDARY VADASSERIKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 662. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VADASSERIKARA, VADASSERIKARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 662. 3. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, VADASSERIKARA, VADASSERIKARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 662. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VADASSERIKARA, VADASSERIKARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 662. 5. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KSEB, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.33896 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a consumer of the first respondent filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P7 order . Earlier, he was issued with Ext.P4 bill demanding a payment of an amount of Rs.1,85,858/- as electricity charges. Against Ext.P4, he has submitted an objection as contemplated under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. After consideration of the same, Ext.P7 order has been passed. It is evident from Ext.P7 that the provisional assessment was made absolutely in all respects. Against Ext.P7, an appeal can be preferred in terms of Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Under normal circumstances, if a statutory remedy of appeal is available, this Court would relegate an aggrieved party to resort to that appellate remedy. In fact, in Ext.P7 itself, the fourth respondent has made it clear that the petitioner could prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of the said order after remitting 50% of the assessed amount ie., Rs.92929/-. At the same time, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that any appealable order has to contain W.P.(C) NO.33896/2010 2 the reasons for the decision made thereunder. In the absence of such reasons, an appellate authority would not be able to decide the sustainability or otherwise of the impugned order. A scanning of Ext.P7 would undoubtedly reveal that it contained no reason at all and hence, it cannot be construed as an order at all. In this context, the sole reason, if at all can be construed as a reason, assigned in Ext.P7 requires to be extracted. In that view of the matter, it reads thus: “The contentions made by him during the hearing are not maintainable either in law or on facts and having no sustainability.” 2. No other reason is given for the decision in Ext.P7. I am of the view that the said order cannot be sustained even for a moment, in the interest of justice. It requires interference. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is set aside. The fourth respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 afresh in accordance with law and pass orders thereon after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be a further direction to the fourth respondent that the electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner shall not be disconnected till an order is passed on Ext.P5 and the necessity to effect disconnection W.P.(C) NO.33896/2010 3 would depend on the decision thereon and the situation emerging thereafter. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.33896/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.33896/2010 5