IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16247 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.P.ABDUL NAZAR,S/O.AHAMMED KOYA, P.P.HOUSE,MANKAVU,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR. T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,REP:BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,KSEB,KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION,KSEB,MANKAVU,KOZHIKODE. ADV. MR. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 16247 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 01st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P3 demand notice, alleging theft of electricity, stated as detected in Ext.P2 mahazar, pursuant to the inspection conducted by the Special Squard headed by an Assistant Engineer on 20.05.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the liability fixed upon the petitioner is not correct or sustainable in the eye of law. More so, since the authority concerned has not chosen to pass any provisional order, giving an opportunity to file the statement of objections, which in turn has virtually nullified the right of appeal, submits the learned counsel. Reliance is also placed on to the facts and figures reflected from Ext.P1 series of bills issued for the prior periods, showing only a much lesser liability. 2. The learned standing counsel submits that the facts and circumstances leading to the inspection and the contents of Ext.P2 mahazar are not much disputed with reference to any reliable materials on record. It is also stated that, this is a clear instance of 'theft of energy' by placing a 'magnet' covered by a black cloth near the meter and that the meter was found working, when the magnet was removed. It was W.P. (C) No. 16247 of 2010 : 2 : pursuant to Ext.P2, that Ext.P3 demand notice was issued, showing the details of the amount due from the petitioner, in view of the incriminating circumstances. The respondents have filed a statement, seeking to sustain the proceedings. It is also stated that, by virtue of the mandate under Section 135 (1) A of the Act, if at all the petitioner wants to have reconnection of electricity , the entire amount will have to be satisfied. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in the absence of any provisional order, the rights and liberties of the petitioner have been much adversely affected and that the respondents are not liable to be permitted to proceed with further steps before completing the proceedings in the manner known to law. 3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the matter can be finalized by directing the respondents to issue a provisional order to the petitioner, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'one week' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner is at liberty to file statement of objections if any, within one week thereafter and the matter shall be finalized by passing final orders within a period of 30 days. It is also made clear that, the restoration of the electricity connection shall be effected forthwith, on satisfying the condition as per Section 135 (1) A of the Act W.P. (C) No. 16247 of 2010 : 3 : and it will be strictly provisional and without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to challenge the impugned bills/orders. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd