IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23334 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TATA TELE SERVICES LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TOWER 1, 1OTH FLOOR, JEEVAN BHARATI, 124 CANNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI AND LOCAL OFFICE AT J & CO. CHAMBERS, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.BOBBY JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SMT.LAKSHMI RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KSEB, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.23334 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is availing of supply of electrical energy with consumer No.7299 under the first respondent. 2. There was an inspection in their premises on 12.10.2008 and Ext.P2 is the Mahazar showing detection of unauthorised additional load of 7 kw. It is stated that there upon Ext.P2 bill was issued demanding a sum of Rs.4,46,045/- which comprised of fixed charges as well as energy charges. Against Ext.P2 provisional demand petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal, remitting 50% of the amount demanded. According to the petitioner, appeal has been heard on 13.5.2009 but orders have not been passed. 3. It is stated that while the matter remained as above, the respondents have issued Ext.P4 demand for the subsequent period and since the basis of the demand WP(c).No.23334/09 2 was the fndings of the APTS, the petitioner by Ext.P5 made a request to keep in abeyance Ext.P4, till the disposal of the appeal. 4. It is also stated that their request for additional allotment of power is also pending. In this writ petition what is sought for is a direction to the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent, to expedite orders on Ext.P5 appeal and in the the meanwhile not to enforce the demand as per Ext.P4. 5. The standing counsel also confirmed the pendency of Ext.P5 appeal. Having regard to the fact that the appeal has already been heard as early as on 13.5.2009, there is no reason why orders on the appeal shall not be expedited. 6. In view of this the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings for recovering the amount will be kept in abeyance and once appeal is disposed of parties will be governed by the appellate order. WP(c).No.23334/09 3 Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.23334/09 4