IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19740 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANOOB E.K., H.B.127, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.S.E.B., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KSEB, KOCHI. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, GIRINAGAR, KOCHI. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., APTS, ERNAKULAM. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 19740 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P3 bill issued by the Board, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 2nd respondent. This was followed by Ext.P5 intimation given by the 2nd respondent, whereby the petitioner was directed to remit 50% of the assessed amount of Rs.77,008/-; however, instructing the concerned AEE to hear the objections of the petitioner. Subsequently, Ext.P6 bill was issued, referring to the arrears of Rs.38,505/- and that the total amount due as Rs.42,804/-. On receipt of the same, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.45,100/- as borne by Ext.P7 receipt, wherein a further sum of Rs.22,185/- is shown as still to be cleared; which made the petitioner to approach this Court contending that, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for demanding such amount and that the petitioner is made to run from 'pillar to post' without finalizing the challenge raised in Ext.P4 against Ext.P3, which hence is sought to be interfered. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel as well, who submits that the amount shown as the balance is, also inclusive of interest resulted because of the default; which however is not discernible from the materials on record and is a matter that requires to be considered by the 2 WP(C) No. 19740/2010 appropriate authority. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already taken up grievance by filing Ext.P4 before the 2nd respondent and further that the entire bill amount as shown in Ext.P3 has already been satisfied by the petitioner, it is quite proper to have Ext.P4 considered and decided on merits at the earliest. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to treat Ext.P4 as a valid appeal subject to the payment of the appeal charges within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, final orders shall be passed on Ext.P4 after hearing the petitioner at the earliest; at any rate, within one month from thereafter. It is made clear that, further recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc