IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16142 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.N.SAGAR,SREEKOVIL,PANANGAD,PUNALUR.PO. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER,VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION,PUNALUR. 4. MR.M.NISSAR,SUB ENGINEER,PUNALUR. 5. UNION OF INDIA,REP BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER, CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD, LODHI MARG,NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADDL.CGSC FOR R5 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.16142 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is availing supply of energy having consumer No12876. Following an inspection in his premises he was issued Ext.P3 bill demanding Rs.80516/-. Finally the said demand was upheld by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P8 order. That order was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.6626/09 and by Ext.P9 judgment this court directed reconsideration of the matter. 2. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and by Ext.P10, the 3rd respondent again confirmed the bill. Petitioner filed Ext.P11 appeal before the 2nd respondent along with Ext.P12 application for stay. It is at this stage the writ petition has been filed. 3. The primary challenge in this writ petition is against Section 127(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, WP(c).No.16142/09 2 which provides that no appeal against an order of assessment under Section 126(1) shall be entertain unless an amount equal to half of the amount is deposited and evidence of deposit is enclosed along with the appeal. In this case this condition has not been complied with and the petitioner submits that the said conditions are violative of his fundamental rights and for that reason is unconstitutional and invalid. 4. According to the standing counsel for the respondent, apart from the very maintainability of the appeal for non- compliance of Section 127(2), he also points out that the appeal is not in the proper form. 5. In so far as challenge against Section 127(2) is concerned, I cannot accept the contention of the petitioner. Firstly, there is a basic distinction between the right of suit and the right of appeal. There is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a civil nature but the right of appeal inheres in no one and therefore an appeal for its WP(c).No.16142/09 3 maintainability must have the clear authority of law (Vide Ganga Bai V. Vijay Kumar AIR1974 SC 1126). Thus appeal is a statutory right and the right of appeal can be circumscribed by conditions imposed by the legislature. The condition requiring deposit of amount is nothing unusual and cannot be said to be an unreasonable violation of the fundamental rights and such prescription in fiscal statutes have already been upheld by the Apex Court itself. See in this connection the Apex Court judgment in Shyam Kishore &Ors. V. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anor. (AIR 1992 SC 2279) where Section 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporations Act, which mandated pre-deposits of the entire amount for hearing and disposal of the appeal regarding levy of property tax was upheld. It may be true that this provision causes individual hardship to the petitioner; but however the validity of a statutory provision cannot depend upon individual hardships. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner with respect of the challenge WP(c).No.16142/09 4 against Section 127(2) of the Act. If that be so, the appeal is defective and is not maintainable and this court will not also be justified in directing consideration of the appeal on merits as sought for in this writ petition. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.16142/09 5