IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20034 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- R.SHREEDHARAN NAIR, S/O.(LATE) N.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, "KANCHI TOURIST HOME", TC 28/1641,PAZHAVANGADI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, FORT SECTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST.ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20034 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, on 30/6/2009, there was an inspection in the hotel owned by him and Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared reporting that there was unauthorized additional load and unauthorized extension of power supply. Following the inspection and the mahazar prepared, Ext.P2 provisional bill demanding Rs.2,27,101 was issued. Thereafter alleging non payment of the same, he was issued Ext.P3 disconnection notice. Again for the subsequent period, when Ext.P7 bill was issued, the amount demanded as per Ext.P2 provisional bill was also demanded. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed contending that since final order on Ext.P2 considering the objection filed by him has not been passed, insistence on the payment of the said amount as per Ext.P7 is illegal. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and also the standing counsel appearing for the respondents, I am inclined to think that the petitioner is justified in his submission that until Ext.P2 is finalised in the light WPC 20034/09 :2 : of Ext.P4 objection, the respondents ought not have demanded payment of the amount thereunder. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2 in the light of Ext.P4 objection filed by the petitioner and not to insist on the payment of the said amount until orders are passed as above. It is made clear that this judgment will not relieve the petitioner from paying the dues for the current period, which the petitioner shall duly pay. Needless to say that the contentions raised in the writ petition are left open. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp The words “2nd respondent” occurring in the 1st sentence in paragraph 3 of the judgment dated 16/7/2009 in WP(C) No.20034/2009 are corrected as “3rd respondent” vide order dated 20/8/2009 in I.A.10092/2009. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)