IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26685 of 2010(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SMT. SANTHA GEORGE, MADAPPILLIL HOUSE, EDATHALA.P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN, SRI.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN, SMT. P.SUMITHRA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUDI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, KSEB, TRIPUNITHURA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, KSEB, PUTHENCRUZE,ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 26685 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT In response to Ext.P1 short assessment bill issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 statement of objection, which however was not properly considered and the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P3 order confirming Ext.P1 bill. Being aggrieved of the situation, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent against Ext.P3 and after considering the same, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 order directing re-assessment to be effected, as specified. Pursuant to Ext.P4, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P5 invoice demanding a sum of Rs.39,683/- and Ext.P6 demand notice, which are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who brought it to the notice of this Court that the plea of 'limitation' raised by the petitioner is not correct or sustainable, having the legal position clarified by this Court against such plea. With regard to the other reliefs if any, the petitioner can still approach the statutory authority, i.e., the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, by filing appropriate proceedings, if so advanced, submits the learned standing counsel. 3. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is relegated to avail 2 WP(C) No. 26685/2010 the statutory remedy by approaching the 'CGRF'. If any such appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate proceedings passed thereon 'on merits', in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months thereafter. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, the coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P6 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc