IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14959 of 2011(T) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- E.C.MUHAMMED HAJI, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.AHAMED HAJI, EROCHALIL, P.O.PUTHUR, VIA KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE-673572. BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN,TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ASSESSING OFFICER), ELECTRICAL SECTION, OMASSERRY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 572. 3. THE ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MALAPPURAM - 676 306. BY ADV. SRI. P.P.THAJUDHEEN, SC. K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 14959/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 24/03/2011 PREPARED BY ABDUL JALEEL K., SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, OMASSERY. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26/03/2011 ISSUED WITH PROVISIONAL BILL DATED 25/03/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 02/04/2011. P4: COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER/UAE/CPM.NO.1691-O/11-12/261 DATED, OMASSERY, 03/05/2011 WITH A BILL ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 14959 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. The Anti Power Theft Squad of the Kerala State Electricity Board, Malappuram conducted an inspection of the residential building of the petitioner on 24.3.2011. It was then noticed that the petitioner had taken an unauthorised extension of the connection to a newly constructed residential building without proper sanction of the Board. After inspection, Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared and Ext.P2 letter dated 26.3.2011 accompanied by an invoice was issued and served on the petitioner demanding payment of the sum of Rs.50,200/- by way of penal charges. The petitioner was also informed that if he has any objection to the provisional order, he can challenge the same within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of that letter. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P3 letter dated 02.04.2011 to the second respondent. The second respondent thereafter issued a notice of hearing, inviting the petitioner to attend the hearing to W.P.(C).No. 14959 OF 2011 2 be held on 25.04.2011. The petitioner did not attend the hearing. The Assistant Engineer, the second respondent herein thereafter passed Ext.P4 order. An invoice was also thereupon issued demanding payment of the sum of Rs.50,200/- towards energy charges as originally proposed. Ext.P4 order and the accompanying invoice are under challenge in this writ petition. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that none of the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P3 representation have been considered by the second respondent. 2. When the writ petition was taken up today for admission-hearing, Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board submitted on instructions that the notice of hearing was duly served on the petitioner, but the petitioner or his representative did not appear for the hearing held on 25.4.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with reference to the averments in paragraph-3 of the writ petition that the petitioner was undergoing treatment in a hospital and therefore he could personally attend the hearing, but his son appeared for the W.P.(C).No. 14959 OF 2011 3 hearing. The learned counsel also submitted that the second respondent did not however acknowledge the appearance of the petitioner's son at the hearing. 3. It is evident from a reading of Ext.P4 order that on the date of hearing, viz. 25.04.2011, the petitioner was not present. The petitioner has, in Ext.P3 representation, pointed out that unauthorised extension was taken to the newly constructed residential building of the petitioner only for a period of seven days, because of the repair works that were being carried out in the old house. The learned counsel further submitted that the recitals in Ext.P1 mahazar also establish the said fact. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the second respondent ought to have afforded the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate his contention in Ext.P3 representation that the unauthorised extension was taken to the newly constructed residential building of the petitioner only for a short period of seven days. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P4 and direct the second respondent to re-consider the matter and pass W.P.(C).No. 14959 OF 2011 4 appropriate orders thereon, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If, after service of notice to the petitioner, he or his authorised representative does not attend the hearing, it will be open to the second respondent to pass orders without affording the petitioner any further opportunity of being heard. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE dmb