IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28453 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M/S.ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P)LTD, 36/2624,FIRST FLOOR, CHERAMANGALATHU HOUSE, SHENOY ROAD, COCHIN-682017 REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT MANAGER (LEGAL & ACQUISITION) MR.BABU PATTATHANAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, MOOTHAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SC. SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 28453 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P4, petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 objection. Apparently Ext.P5 is preferred under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. In Ext.P6 what is stated essentially is that the objection cannot be considered because of the expiry of the date of the bill. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. I feel that Ext.P6 cannot be sustained and the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P5 objection and take a decision thereon within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ext.P6 is quashed. Till such time as a decision is taken, there will be no disconnection. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb