IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37584 of 2008(Y) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SANTHIGIRI ASRAMAM, REGISTER NO.88/1978. SANTHIGIRI P.O. POTHENKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SWAMI CHAITHANNYA JNANA THAPASWI, BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STTE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VAIDHYUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,POTHENKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,POTHENKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE (APPELLATE AUTHORITY),KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTTARAKKARA. BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 37584 OF 2008 Y -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P3(a), P6, P6(a) and P9. A direction is sought to pass orders on Ext.P8 and not to issue further bills like Ext.P9 before disposal of Ext.P8. 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner has a LT IV industrial connection. There was an inspection and Ext.P2 mahazar was prepared on 18.11.2008. It is the case of the respondents that energy intended for industrial unit is misused for other purpose. Ext.P3 is a notice and Ext.3 (a) is a provisional penal bill for Rs.12,99,295/=. Petitioner preferred Ext.P4 objection. Petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 for a personal hearing. It is the case of the petitioner that no sufficient opportunity was given and there was no personal hearing. Thereafter, Ext.P6 order was passed under Section 126 and Ext.P6(a) bill is issued. Still later, Ext.P9 dated 9.12.2008 is issued alleging unauthorised load. Learned standing counsel WPC.37584/08 Y 2 points out that as against P6, petitioner can maintain an Appeal and as against Ext.P9, petitioner can file his objections and that can be considered and the matter finalised. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: Petitioner is relegated to prefer Appeal against Exts.P6 and P6(a), necessarily after paying the amounts as payable under law within the period of limitation. As far as Ext.P9 is concerned, it is for the petitioner to file his objection before the third respondent within ten days from today and the third respondent will consider the same and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within one month from the date of filing the objection. Till such time as a decision is taken, there will be no further action taken against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P9. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge