IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34009 of 2004(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M. SOOPPI, SO. KUNHEEDU, MOOCHIKKADAN HOUSE, IRINGALLOOR P.O., VENGARA (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 NOTICE DT 5.11.04 BY R2. P2 NOTICE DT 5.11.04 BY R2. P3 INVOICE DT 18.11.04 BY R2. P4 INVOICE DT 18.11.04 BY R2. P5 REPLY TO EXT.P1 NOTICE TO R2 DT 20.11.04. P6 REPLY TO EXT.P2 TO R2. P7 DEMAND NOTICE DT 8.10.04. P8 DEMAND NOTICE DT 8.10.04 P9 NOTIFICATION DT 18.9.02. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 34009 OF 2004 W ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has two houses and there are two electric connections. He received Exts.P1 and P2 notices on 19.11.2004 asking him an explanation within three days from the date of receipt of the notices. The petitioner submitted Exts.P5 and P6 replies on 20.11.2004. However, the complaint of the petitioner is that without considering the replies, Exts.P3 and P4 are passed directing the petitioner to pay Rs.4,034/- and Rs.61,305/- respectively. It is at this stage the petitioner has approached this Court. Counter is filed. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner submitted Exts.P5 and P6 objections as demanded in Exts.P1 and P2. Exts.P3 and P4 are issued on 18.11.2004. This means that Exts.P3 and P4 are issued without waiting even for the expiry of the period granted by the officer in Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioner has admittedly given Exts.P5 and P6 explanations within the time limit on 20.11.2004. If that be so, it is a clear case where WPC.34009/04 : 2 : the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. The 2nd respondent will take a decision in the matter after considering Exts.P5 and P6 in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks