IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22752 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MS. ASHIQUE EXPORTS PVT. LTD. POOTHIKKAD POOMALA.P.O., SULTAN BATTERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P.C.THAHIR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE KALPETTA. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE)K.S.E.B. PATTAM PALACE.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.22752 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The matter arises out of an Anti Power Theft Squad inspection held in the premises of the petitioner on 23/03/2007. It is stated that at the time of inspection unauthorised additional load was found, which led to the issuance of additional bill, which according to the petitioner, was paid. It is also their case that immediately thereafter unauthorised additional load allegedly found was disconnected, and irrespective of the disconnection, the petitioner is being served penal bills for periods subsequent thereto, the last of which is Ext.P8. Payment has not been made, and therefore, Ext.P11 notice of disconnection has been issued to which also objection has been filed by Ext.P12. It is apprehending that without deciding on the objection filed, disconnection will be effected pursuant to Ext.P11, that this writ petition is filed. 2. If as a matter of fact, immediately on detection of the unauthorised additional load, the objectionable portion has already WP(C) No.22752/2009 -2- been disconnected, that certainly ought to have been taken into account while penalising the petitioner by issuing subsequent bills. 3. However, having regard to the fact that against Ext.P8 also, an appeal lies to the Deputy Chief Engineer, and since the dispute involves factual questions, I feel it is only appropriate that the petitioner pursues the appellate remedy. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- That further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 will be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today, and in the meanwhile, it will be open to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy, and if an appeal is filed within the said period complying with other conditions specified in that behalf, the same will be entertained and dealt with on merits. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg