IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26323 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SITA.B.NAIR, AGED 47, D/O. K.BHASKARAN NAIR, SEETHA COTTAGE, SOUTH PUTHUVAIPU, KOCHI-682508. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.K.B.REKHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUDHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, MALIPURAM.P.O., KOCHI-682511. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.26323 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th August , 2010 J U D G M E N T The father of the petitioner was the consumer before the respondents, who had challenged the bills issued in respect of the connection, by approaching this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No. 4852 of 2008, wherein Ext.P1 judgment was passed directing the party to avail the statutory remedy as provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. 2. Pursuant to Ext. P1 judgment, the father of the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal on time. The petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings and has come to know of Ext. P6 order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle/appellate authority only recently. As per Ext. P6, interference was declined and the appeal was rejected observing that the appellant had not satisfied 50% of the disputed amount (as prescribed in the statute), but remitted W.P.(C) No.26323 OF 2010 2 only a portion of the liability, i.e. Rs.7500/- pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, after submitting Ext.P2 appeal, the appellant (father of the petitioner) took his last breath on '19.12.2008' as contended in paragraph No.4 of the Writ Petition (adding that the date mentioned in Ext. P4 as '19.12.2009' is only a 'typing mistake'). It is asserted that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings finalised by the appellate authority vide Ext. P6 and it was accordingly, a copy of the same was sought for vide Ext. P4 for taking further steps. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board as well. 5. Since the father of the petitioner, who preferred Ext.P2 appeal pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, immediately took his last breath after filing the appeal, the order passed by the appellate authority (which is dated 17.12.2009) i.e., after the death of the concerned consumer on '19.12.2008' is not correct or sustainable . The proceedings could have been finalised only W.P.(C) No.26323 OF 2010 3 after issuing proper notice to the legal heirs of the deceased. However, it also remains a fact that the appellate authority was also not aware of the death of the appellant. 6. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the matter requires to be re-considered by the appellate authority, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and other legal heirs to comply with the statutory requirement as contemplated under Section 127(2) by effecting deposit to the tune of 50% of the disputed amount and to contest the matter by way of appeal. 7. So as to enable the petitioner to satisfy the statutory requirement as above, Ext.P6 is set aside. It is open to the petitioner and others concerned, to satisfy the remaining liability to top up the figure in respect of 50% of the disputed amount required to be satisfied under Section 127(2), within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment; filing appropriate proceedings to bring them into the party array; on which event, Ext.P2 shall be re-considered and finalized by the appellate authority after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/legal heirs . It is made clear that recovery proceedings W.P.(C) No.26323 OF 2010 4 shall be kept in abeyance till the proceedings are finalised as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk