IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No. 1545 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15449/2008 DATED 26/05/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- RANGASWAMY P., S/O.PALANIAPPAN, AGED 52, KOLAYAKKODE, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA & SMT.MANJU R.KARTHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PALAKKAD. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KANJIKODE ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR KSEB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1545 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Exts.P2 and P4 orders passed by the second respondent in exercise of his powers under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 ('the Act' for short), have been called in question by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.15449 of 2008. 2. Even before approaching this Court, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Palakkad against the orders passed in Exts.P2 and P4. 3. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on two counts, firstly, that parallel proceedings are impermissible in law and secondly that since the petitioner has already preferred his appeal as provided under the statute, the writ court is not normally expected to entertain the writ petition. 4. The admitted facts are: An order is passed by the authority having the jurisdiction in exercise of his powers under Section 127 of the Act. That order is called in question by the petitioner before the first appellate authority. While filing the appeal, the consumer of the electricity has to make certain deposits. The right of appeal is a statutory W.A.No.1545 of 2008 2 right and not a fundamental right. If the statute says that for consideration of the appeal certain amount requires to be deposited, the person who files the appeal has to comply with that condition. If that condition is not complied with, the appellate authority is not expected to entertain the appeal. 5. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, as provided under the statute, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition. We do not see any error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which would call for our interference in appeal. 6. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns