IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23162 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.PROCESS COLOR,NEAR PARAMARA TEMPLE, NORTH, ERNAKULAM REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, BENITO JOS. BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,TRIVANDRUM. 2. ASST.ENGINEER,ELETRICAL SECTION CENTRAL, KSEB,KOCHI. 3. SRI.P.A.MATHEW,SUB ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION,CENTRAL,ERNAKULAM. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.23162 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that it is a commercial establishment engaged in the process of colour separation and making films for different types of printing. It is an LT IV consumer, with a 3 phase connection. Ext.P1 series are the previous bills of the petitioner. 2. On 11/06/2009, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the petitioner's premises and Ext.P3 is the mahazar that was prepared. A reading of Ext.P3 mahazar shows that on account of wrong connection in the CT terminals, the consumption recorded was erroneous in as much as it was -34.5%. Accordingly, Exts.P4 & P4(a) provisional demands were issued to the petitioner demanding Rs.96,706/-. On its receipt, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 objection. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued another bill for an amount of Rs.13,664/- for the subsequent period. It is stated by the learned counsel that the said amount has been paid. It is stated that now, the petitioner has been issued Ext.P6 bill demanding a WP(C) No.23162/2009 -2- further sum of Rs.5,416/-. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although after the receipt of Ext.P5 objection to Exts.P4 & P4(a) provisional demands, the petitioner has been heard in the matter, orders have not been communicated and the petitioner is continued to be given penal bill including Ext.P6. It is on this basis, the writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying to quash Exts.P4, P4(a) and P6 and for a direction to the respondents not to invoke Section 126 of the Electricity Act, and penalise the petitioner. 4. As already noticed, based on Ext.P3 mahazar, provisional demand was made on the petitioner by Exts.P4 & P4(a). As per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 on receipt of such provisional demand, a consumer is entitled to file objection, and the Assessing Officer is bound to pass orders considering the objection filed by the consumer. According to the petitioner, they have already been heard on the objection filed by them. However, final orders have not been passed. If that be so, the petitioner will have to await for the decision of the Assessing Officer and in that view of the matter this writ petition is premature. WP(C) No.23162/2009 -3- 5. In view of this, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- That, if order has not been passed till date, as desired by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to file a supplementary objection to Exts.P4 & P4(a), which shall be done by the petitioner within seven days from today. It is directed that if a supplementary objection is filed by the petitioner as above, the petitioner will be given a further opportunity of hearing, and final orders considering Ext.P5 and the supplementary objection to be filed shall be passed. 6. Needless to say that in the meanwhile further proceedings for recovery of the amount due under Exts.P4 & P4(a) will be kept in abeyance. 7. The petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg