IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17631 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAUDABI, W/O.ABDULKHADER, BENDICHAL HOUSE, BENDICHAL P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KASARGOD. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHERKALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. MARIYUMBI, W/O.KOVVAL AHMED HAJI, THEKKIL P.O., CHATTANCHAL, PIN 671541, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. SUMAYYA, 2ND WIFE OF KOVVAL AHMED HAJI, -DO-, -DO-. 5. ABDUL AZIZ, S/O.KOVVAL AHMED HAJI, -DO-, -DO-. 6. SAHID, S/O.MOIDEENKUNJU MUSALIAR, MASINA MANZIL, KAHANGAD P.O., PIN 671315 KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. P.P. THAJUDHEEN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 17631 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 8th June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is actually aggrieved of Ext. P3 provisional assessment fixing huge liability of Rs.1,17,358/- pursuant to Ext. P2 inspection and site mahazar. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the incriminating circumstances noted in Ext.P2 are not correct or proper and that, by virtue of vested rights of the petitioner to challenge the provisional assessment, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 statement of objection. But since Ext.P4 happened to be filed before the first respondent (actually it was to be filed before the second respondent), the first respondent unfortunately treated the said proceedings as an 'appeal' and passed Ext. P6 order, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the original demand and a further sum of Rs.Two thousand towards fee for appeal, for proceeding with the matter further, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for passing appropriate orders to redress the grievance of the petitioner in the particular circumstances. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board, W.P.(C) No. 17631 OF 2010 2 with reference to the statutory prescription under Section 126 (3) of the Electricity Act submits that the mistake has been committed by none other than the petitioner herself and since no objection has been preferred in respect of Ext. P3 provisional assessment within the stipulated time, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has actually preferred Ext. P4 as objection in response to the provisional assessment order dated 02.09.2008, under Section 126 (3) of the Electricity Act. 3. Obviously, Ext.P4 was never intended to be filed as an appeal, though the same happened to be filed before the first respondent. It is stated that, on receipt of Ext. P3 demand notice, the matter was entrusted with the Counsel for filing objection before the concerned authority, who in turn filed the same before the first respondent, instead of the second respondent. It is also revealed from Ext.P6 that a condition has been imposed referring to the 'appeal' filed by the petitioner requiring the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the original demand and also to remit Rs. 2000/- towards 'appeal fee', which by itself W.P.(C) No. 17631 OF 2010 3 shows that there was no proper application of mind on the part of the first respondent as well, while considering Ext. P4, obviously for the reason that it was never an 'appeal', but an 'objection' in response to the provisional assessment order . 4. In the above circumstance, Ext.P6 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to forward Ext.P4 to the second respondent within one week. On receipt of the said proceedings, the second respondent shall consider the matter and finalise the assessment after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month thereafter. All further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk