IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26654 of 2008(W) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.K. GEORGE, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, MALAPPALLIPURAM.P.O, MALA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BAHVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MALA, THRISSUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MALA, THRISSUR. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. 5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-4 R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRAN 0THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 26654 OF 2008 W -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a consumer of electricity. Complaint of petitioner is levying of shifting charges of electric line to its original position as directed by the fifth respondent. Case of the petitioner is that his property is situated on the eastern side of the Mala - Paluinmuri road and he had constructed a compound wall also, the height of which is 3-1/2 metres. It is stated that respondents 2 to 4 shifted the electric line from the western side when the petitioner was out of station. Petitioner filed representation. A Report was called as Ext.P1 and thereafter, the Magistrate passed Ext.P2 ordering shifting of the line. It is stated that the Magistrate had not directed the petitioner to bear the expenses of shifting, but it was not implemented. Petitioner was called upon by Ext.P3 notice to deposit the shifting charges. The fourth respondent also issued Ext.P4 order and it is stated WPC.26654/08 W 2 that since the situation required urgent intervention, the petitioner deposited the amount under protest. It is further stated that the petitioner thereafter filed Ext.P5 before the first respondent seeking refund of the amount. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash Exts.P3 and P4 and to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 representation. 2. I heard Shri M.B. Prajith, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel. Apparently, the petitioner has effected payment of the money. Petitioner was called upon to pay under Exts.P3 and P4. Petitioner has now filed an application seeking refund of the amount. There is no statutory basis on which the petitioner could have filed Ext.P5 representation. I would think that in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court need not consider the case of the petitioner in this proceedings. It is for the petitioner, if he is aggrieved, to approach the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. Without prejudice to the right of the WPC.26654/08 W 3 petitioner to approach the civil court, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge