IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8378 of 2009(N) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M/S.BINANI ZINC LIMITED,BINANIPURAM- 683502,REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT (ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION),MR.A.A.MOHAMED NAWAZ. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA & TERRY V. JAMES. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER(REVENUE),KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 8378 OF 2009 N -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P12. Petitioner had preferred Ext.P9 Appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Petitioner moved an Application for stay which was rejected by Ext.P7. In Ext.P7, it is stated as follows: “Heard the parties. The interlocutory application is dismissed. Reasons to follow.” It is also stated that “the learned counsel for the appellant wishes to file rejoinder. This may be done within a week's time. List the matter on May 14, 2008.” 2. Petitioner challenged the said Order before this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court pronounced Ext.P10 Judgment. This Court did not interfere with the order, but only WPC.8378/09 N 2 granted some time to pay the amounts. Of course, this Court proceeded on the basis that the Appeal itself will be heard. It is pointed out that it is not done so far. What is more, Ext.P12 is issued on 12.01.2009. Ext.P12 essentially purports to give the reasons. 3. I heard Shri Joseph Kodianthara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.P. Thajudeen, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Electricity Board. I would think that this Writ Petition may not be maintainable. Petitioner is actually aggrieved by Ext.P12. Ext.P12 actually purports to set out the reasons for passing Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 order was the subject matter of the Writ Petition in this Court. That was culminated in Ext.P10 Judgment. Therefore, I would not think that it may be open for me to entertain a fresh Writ Petition. Learned standing counsel points out that the petitioner has a right of Appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 125 of WPC.8378/09 N 3 the Electricity Act, 2003. The Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to any other remedy which the petitioner has in law. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge