IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 W.A.No.1423 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.28645/2007 DATED 27/05/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------- T.K. USMAN HAJI, S/O KUNHAMMED, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARFA MANZIL, VILIAPPALLY , POST MAYYANNUR, VADKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.KODOTH PUSHPARAJAN SRI.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERLA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, VADAKARA. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VADAKARA NORTH. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, WITH ADDRESS FOR SERVICE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. R1 TO R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. --------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1423 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.28645 of 2007 dated 27th May, 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition and, thereby, has confirmed the orders passed by the first appellate authority in Appeal No.6/07-08 dated 30.05.2007. 2. The petitioner is a consumer of the electrical energy supplied by the respondents-Electricity Board. The Inspecting Wing of the Board had inspected the electrical installation of the petitioner in his residential premises. They have noticed that there is tampering of the electric meter and, thereby, the consumer has committed theft of energy. 3. After issuing the provisional bill, they have also passed an order. Pursuant to the orders so passed, the consumer has deposited the entire amount demanded in the bill. 4. Aggrieved by the orders so passed by the respondent-Board, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.6/07-08. The Appellate Authority has rejected W.A.No.1423 of 2008 - 2 - the appeal and while doing so, has stated as under: “After hearing and studying the documents connected with this case, it is obvious that the consumer committed theft of energy. But considering the average monthly consumption of the petitioner and taking a lenient view, the appellate authority orders that the assessment of the appellant may be revised as per the total connected load attached to the premises for an average use of 10 hours per day by diversity factor taken as '2' i.e. multiplication factor being 0.5 and penalize 1.5 times for a period of 6 months”. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority, the consumer was before this Court in W.P.(C).No.28645 of 2007. The learned Single Judge, after noticing each one of the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has rejected the writ petition. That is how the petitioner is before us in this appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend, that, the respondents, without complying with the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Act” for short), could not have issued the impugned bill and that aspect of the matter was not noticed by the learned Single Judge, according to the petitioner. W.A.No.1423 of 2008 - 3 - 7. In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel is not available to him in this Writ Appeal. If, for any reason, the respondents had not complied with the statutory provisions as envisaged under Section 126 of the Act, the consumer should have taken up that contention as the first ground in the memorandum of appeal filed before the first appellate authority. When we asked the learned counsel for the appellant, whether the aforesaid ground was taken before the first appellate authority, the learned counsel, very fairly, stated that the consumer had not taken up that contention before the first appellate authority. 8. In our opinion, judicial review of the orders passed by the first appellate authority can be taken only if there is a procedural irregularity committed by the authorities under the Act. The writ proceedings are not appellate proceedings. Secondly, what is not urged and argued before the first appellate authority cannot be raised, for the first time, in a writ proceedings or in the Writ Appeal. 9. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in rejecting the writ petition, while confirming the orders passed by the first appellate authority. We do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be W.A.No.1423 of 2008 - 4 - rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-