IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH MAY 2009 / 22ND VAISAKHA 1931 WA.No. 1010 of 2009() --------------------- {IN WPC.34365/2008 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------- ALIYARUKUNJU,PROPRIETOR,T.K.M.BRICKS, MUTTAKKAVU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYTHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, KERALA STTE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUB ENGINEER IN CHARGE OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIERUVANANTHAPURAM ELECTRICAL SECTION, KANNANALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECOR, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN - SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1010 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order of the appellate authority through which the penal bill imposed upon the petitioner under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is confirmed. The appellant submits that as per Ext.P7 report of the Electrical Inspector issued after testing of the energy meter, will clearly reveal that there is no theft committed in the case. The remarks of the testing authority in Ext.P7 reads as follows: “The conditions of the seals and screws were as shown in para 1. The meter was tested in the received condition and seen that the meter is having a positive error. The counter was working properly and no irregularity or evidence for tempering, as recorded in the site mahassar was noticed.” 2. In the circumstances, the sustainability of the proceedings imposing penalty need be examined in the writ petition, afresh based on Ext.P7. Therefore insistence for part payment imposed by the Single Judge will work out in causing prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, we are inclined to interfere with the interim order passed in the writ petition on 20.3.2009, which is W.A.No.1010 of 2009 :: 2 :: impugned in this writ appeal, to the extent it imposes condition for payment of Rs.20,000/-. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the order impugned is modified deleting the condition for payment of Rs.20,000/- imposed therein. The writ petition may be posted for disposal immediately on re-opening of the court after mid-summer holidays. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE Sd/- (C.K.ABDUL REHIM) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge