IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 W.A.No. 674 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.24397/2007 DATED 12/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M/S.ALUVA TECHNO RUBBERS (P) LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.P.H.ASHRAF, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA - 683 112, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) & SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER REVENUE, KSE BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & M.C.HARI RANI, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.674 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C). No.24397 of 2007 dated 12th February, 2008 is the subject matter of this writ appeal. 2. Petitioner is an industry. The respondent Board has issued a demand notice inter alia directing the petitioner to pay up the arrears of electricity charges. The demand so made is to the tune of Rs.85 lakhs. According to the petitioner/appellant, he has already paid a sum of Rs.53 lakhs towards the demand made by the respondent Board, and therefore, there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to have directed him to pay the balance amount of Rs.31 lakhs in monthly instalments. 3.Sri.P. Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that without there being an application by the Board either for modification or for vacating the interim order, the learned Single Judge was not justified in modifying the earlier order passed. 4. Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned counsel appears for the respondents and justifies the impugned order. 5. The subject matter of the writ appeal is an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellate court will entertain an appeal filed W.A.No.674 of 2008 2 against an interim order if the interim order so passed is either arbitrary, perverse or capricious or contrary to the precedents laid down by the Apex Court. 6. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has directed the petitioner to pay up the amounts as demanded by the respondent Board subject to the result of the writ petition. If for any reason he succeeds in the writ petition, he would be entitled for refund of the amount paid by him during the pendency of the writ petition. 7. In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain this writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. The appellant is granted time to comply with the orders and directions issued by the learned Single Judge commencing from 1st of July, 2008. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE vns/dk