IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33034 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KENTEC PLASTICS, A FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.G.JACKSON, MARATHAKARA, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, MARATHAKARA, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 33034 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is a Small Scale Unit, engaged in the manufacture of plastic products filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 invoice and Ext.P5 order of the first respondent. Alleging unauthorized additional load, as per Ext.P3 invoice penalty to the tune of Rs.1,72,469/- was directed to be paid. Raising grievance against Ext.P3 invoice the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 objection under section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Ext.P5 is the order passed thereon by the first respondent. 2. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner for challenging Ext.P3 invoice and Ext.P5 order. However, I do not propose to consider those contentions in this writ petition for the simple reason that as against Ext.P5 a statutory remedy of appeal is available. Though Ext.P5 is an objection filed by the petitioner under section 126(3) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 it has been wrongly described as an appeal. In fact Ext.P4 is not an appeal whilst it is only the WPC.33034/2010 : 2 : objection preferred against Ext.P3 under section 126(3) of the Act. If a person is aggrieved by an order passed on such an objection, the remedy is to file an appeal under section 127 of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner apprehends disconnection of the electric connection based on Ext.P5. 3. Admittedly, the appeal period is not yet over. Considering the said fact the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal under section 127 of the Act to redress the grievance against Ext.P5. In case the petitioner prefers an appeal against Ext.P5 within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment the same shall be treated as an appeal preferred within the time limit. The electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner shall not be disconnected for a period of six weeks to enable the petitioner to avail the said remedy. Subject to the above, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge WPC.33034/2010 : 3 :