IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 12059 of 2002(I) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.K.SIDDIQUE, S/O. BEERAN, PURAYIL HOUSE, CHERUVADI P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.T.A.RAMADASAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,REP. BY SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., KUNNAMANGALAM. 3. THE SUB ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., MUKKOM SECTION, MUKKOM. 4. THE SENIOR SUPDT., K.S.E.B., MUKKOM SECTION, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R4 BY MR. C.K.KARUNAKARAN, S.C ,K.S.E.B. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 12059/2002-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE R.3. FOR THE MONTH OF 6/01. EXT.P.1.B: COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE R.3. FOR THE MONTH OF 8/01. EXT.P.1.C: COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE R.3. FOR THE MONTH OF 9/01. EXT.P.1.D: COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE R.3. FOR THE MONTH OF 11/01. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SCENE MAHZAR ISSUED BY THE R.3. DT. 03/01/01. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE SPECIAL BILL DT. 22/01/02. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R2 DTD. 28/01/02. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 4895/02 (G) DTD. 23/02/02. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. DT. 05/04/02. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P. NO. 12059 OF 2002 (I) ===================== Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Proprietor of Cheruvadi Brothers Automobiles, an automobile workshop. It is stated that on 3/1/2002, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the premises and found certain unauthorised connected load. Based on such finding, Ext.P3 penalty bill was issued on the petitioner demanding Rs. 78,712/-. He filed Ext.P4 appeal. That was directed to be disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment of this Court in OP 4895/04 filed by the petitioner. Although, it was directed that the petitioner should also be heard in the matter, counsel complains that while rejecting the appeal as per Ext.P6 order, the 2nd respondent did not afford him an opportunity of hearing. 2. While that is the main contention that is raised in this original petition, I do not think it necessary that the matter should be reconsidered in that light. In my view, it will be more beneficial for the petitioner if the Board reexamines the issue in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment rendered in WA No.1231/03, where it was ordered that depending upon the facts of each case, the Board will examine whether the individual cases OP 12059/02 :2 : deserves levy of maximum penalty at three times of the charges. Therefore, this case also deserves to be re-examined as directed in the aforesaid judgment. 3. Accordingly, I dispose of this original petition quashing Ext.P6 and directing the 2nd respondent to re-examine the proceedings resulting in Ext.P3 bill issued to the petitioner in the light of the direction in the judgment in WA No.1231/2003. It is directed that while orders are passed, the petitioner should also be given an opportunity of hearing. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment in WA 1231/2003 before the 2nd respondent for compliance. It is directed that once the judgments are produced as above, the 2nd respondent shall decide the matter with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks thereafter. 5. It is directed that in the meanwhile, the interim stay ordered by this Court on 3/5/2002 will continue and the amount of Rs.25,000/- remitted by the petitioner will be appropriated depending upon the outcome of such reexamination. Original petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp