IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20023 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DR.BIKKY MAMMEN MODAYIL, S/O.DR.MAMMEN THOMAS, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT MODAYIL HOUSE, DEVIKULAM - 685 613, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.SAM & COMPANY. 2. RENJITH GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, MANAGER, KADAMANKULAM ESTATE, SAM & COMPANY, POOPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE SRI.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CHITHIRAPURAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ' ELECTRICAL SECTION, RAJAKUMARI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.20023 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioners are availing of supply of energy with consumer No.2720. It is stated that, on an earlier occasion they were issued bill for Rs.1,96,036/- and that was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.13638/94. During its pendency, yet another bill was issued. In the meanwhile, appeal was filed against the bill for Rs.1,96,036/-. It is stated that, by Ext.P3 judgment rendered in the aforesaid writ petition, this court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal referred to above. Orders were not passed and in the meanwhile Ext.P5 bill was also issued which has been withdrawn following Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this court in WP(c).No.3770/07. 2. Now the petitioners are issued Ext.P7 demand notice, calling upon them to pay an amount of Rs.5,11,185/-. In this writ petition what is complained of is that it was without disposing of the appeal as directed by WP(c).No.20023/09 2 this court in Ext.P3 judgment that the demand notice is now issued. 3. The case was adjourned with a direction to the Standing Counsel for the Board to obtain instructions as to whether Ext.P3 has been complied with by disposing of the appeal. Today, it is confirmed that so far order has not been passed disposing of the appeal. If so, according to me, Ext.P7 is premature. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the bill for Rs.1,96,036/- referred to above, shall be dealt with as directed in Ext.P3 judgment and shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of the judgment. It is directed that in the meanwhile, the respondent shall not insist that the petitioner should pay the amount claimed as per Ext.P7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WP(c).No.20023/09 3 WP(c).No.20023/09 4