IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37691 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE PRESIDENT,KALABHAVAN,TOWN HALL ROAD, ERNAKULAM-18,(CONSUMER NO.3051 OF ELECTRICAL SELECTION, CENTRAL). BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION, CENTRAL K S E B, ERNAKULAM – 682 018. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.37691 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 23rd December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a lower tension consumer of the first respondent under tariff LT VI-B. Earlier, Ext.P4 provisional assessment order was served on the petitioner. Subsequently, Ext.P5 objection was raised by the petitioner against the said provisional assessment order dated 19.11.2010. In the meanwhile, the assessing authority passed Ext.P6 order. It is challenging Exts.P4 and P6 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned standing counsel submitted that subsequent to Ext.P4 provisional assessment order an intimation was given to the petitioner requiring him to raise objections, if any, within seven days. It was further informed that in case of his failure to raise any objection, final orders would be passed as if the petitioner got no objection against Ext.P4. A perusal of Ext.P6 final assessment order would reveal that the said order was passed only based on the failure on the part of the petitioner herein to prefer any objection. The petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in J.D.T.Islam Orphanage Committee v. Asst. Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board (2007 (3) KLT 388) to canvass the position that Ext.P6 WP(C).No.37691/2010 2 is unsustainable, inasmuch as an amount which is in excess of double the amount was demanded. The learned standing counsel submitted that against the said decision an appeal is pending. However, it is admitted that there was no stay against the decision of the learned single Judge in the said writ petition. It be the position, before passing Ext.P6 order the respondents should have considered the dictum laid down in the decision reported in 2007 (3) KLT 388 (supra). In short, I am of the view that Ext.P6 requires a reconsideration especially taking note of the fact that the said order was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard as contemplated under section 126(3) of the Electricity Act. For all these reasons, Ext.P6 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P5 after treating it as an objection received within the time limit prescribed under section 126 of the Electricity Act and pass orders thereon after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps based on Ext.P6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy //