IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 9385 of 2003(P) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. MAHADEVA PANICKER, AGED 41 YEARS, KAMALA BHAVAN, PUTHIYAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA. 2. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. N.SUNDARESAN, SUNIL VILLA, VAZHIVADA MURI, THAZHAKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SMT.SREELEKHA PUTHALATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MAVELIKKARA. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, MAVELIKARA. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, MAVELIKARA. ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN SC, KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NOS.16245/2003 , 19826/2003 IN OP. NO.9385/2003 DISMISSED 09.12.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 9385 of 2003-P - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners who are the owner and the tenant in respect of a shop building which is having electric connection with consumer No.15965, are challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Appellate Authority. 2. The respondents initiated proceedings alleging theft of electricity. The inspection was conducted on 12.10.2002 and a penalty of Rs.35,962/- was demanded along with a notice of disconnection, viz. Ext.P2. This was challenged by the petitioners in appeal before the Appellate Authority and Ext.P4 is the appeal memorandum. The petitioners had approached this court earlier by filing O.P.No.32498/2002 seeking various reliefs and the same was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing the second respondent to hear and dispose of Ext.P4 appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and on condition of a deposit of Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, Ext.P6 order has been passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in Ext.P6, the Appellate Authority did not advert to any specific points raised in the appeal memorandum and has not entered clear findings on any of the points raised. OP 9385/2003 2 A reading of Ext.P6 shows that the said contention is correct. After observing that the argument put forth by the appellant in order to substantiate his arguments in the appeal were rather vacuous, the Appellate Authority was of the view that there is no substance in the appeal petition submitted by the appellant. It is seen that none of the contentions have been adverted to and no specific findings have been entered as to why the contentions are found unsustainable. Being an Appellate Authority which was empowered to go into the details of the contentions, it was expected of it to consider the matter on merits, especially in the light of the directions issued by this court in Ext.P5 judgment. 4. Therefore, the original petition is allowed. Ext.P6 is quashed. The Appellate Authority, viz. the second respondent will re-hear the appeal with notice to the petitioners and pass orders on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners in the memorandum of appeal. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible. Pending disposal of the appeal, the demand made as per Ext.P2 bill will be kept in abeyance. The original petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 9385/2003 3 T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 9385 of 2003-P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 9th December, 2008.