IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14155 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAZRAH BEEVI, MANAYATH HOUSE, P.O.VADUTHALA JETTY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, P.O.NADUVATH NAGAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 559. ADV. SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN(SC FOR K.S.E.B) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14155 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is before this Court challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P2 'provisional bill' issued by the respondents seeking to realise the amount shown, alleging some incriminating circumstances, which according to the petitioner is not correct or sustainable. 2. The case of the petitioner as narrated in the Writ Petition is that, there was an inspection by the 'Anti Power Theft Squad' (APTS) in the premises of the petitioner on 19-05-2011, which led to the issuance of Ext.P2 bill for a sum of Rs.27,213/- along with Ext.P2(a) covering letter dated 20-05-2011 in the name of the late husband of the petitioner. Immediately on receipt of the same, Ext.P3 objection was preferred as provided under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is without reference to the above that the provisional bill has been given, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court. There is a further grievance for the petitioner that, the 3rd respondent has unilaterally changed the the tariff from LT I A to LT VII A, which is stated as without any authority. W.P.(C) No.14155/2011 2 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, as borne by the materials on record, particularly the Mahazar, there is clear misuse of energy, in so far as the power supply in respect of the 'residential building' was diverted for 'commercial purpose', which led to Ext.P2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 statement as supplementary to Ext.P3 objection and seeks for a direction to have the matter finalised on the basis of the entire materials on record. 5. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 objection read with Ext.P5 preferred in response to Ext.P2 and pass final orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 'Status quo' shall be maintained till such time. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE