IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14282 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.BARID CHESHU, S/O.P.B.ELBY, PROPRIETOR, ST.GEORGE ICE FACTORY, III/410B, MURUKUMPADAM, AZHEEKKAL P.O., KOCHI-682510. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SRI.BIMAL PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VYPIN. 3. THE ASST. ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VYPIN. 4. SRI.K.G.DEETMAR, S/O.KOMMATH GOPALAN, MURUKKUMPADAM, AZHEEKKAL P.O., KOCHI-682510. 5. SRI.K.G.DADU, S/O.KOMMATH GOPALAN, MURUKKUMPADAM, AZHEEKKAL P.O., KOCHI-682510. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSE BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.14282 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that he purchased St.George Ice Factory only in August, 2007 as per Ext.P1. It is stated that subsequently, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the premises and prepared Ext.P11 mahazar, where it is stated the multiplication factor adopted was wrong. It would appear that subsequently by Ext.P12, short assessment bill demanding an amount of Rs.15,60,096/- was issued and on its receipt, the petitioner filed Ext.P14 objection. It is stated that without considering Ext.P14, Ext.P15 bill was issued, that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the KSE Board points out that it being a case of reassessment, the appropriate authority before whom the objections are to be raised is the Executive Engineer of the Board as provided under Regulation 37 framed by the Board. It is stated that for that reason, the objection filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Engineer could WP(C) No.14282/2009 -2- not be considered. 3. If as stated by the learned standing counsel for the KSE Board, the appropriate authority to deal with the grievances raised in the writ petition is the Executive Engineer of the Board, it is necessary for the petitioner to raise his objections before the said authority. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- That within two weeks from today, it will be open to the petitioner to raise his objections against Exts.P12, P13 & P15 before the Executive Engineer of the Board as provided under Regulation 37, in which event, the said authority shall decide on the objections raised by the petitioner with notice to him and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks thereafter. It is directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to the recovery of the amount due under Exts.P13 & P15 shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 & 3 for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg