IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31286 of 2010(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PALLIPURATH MUSTHAFA MOOSA FOUSIYAS, THANA P.O., KANNUR-1, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.C.THAHA, DHAR-UL-FATH, KANNOTHUMCHAL, KANNUR 6. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION CENTRAL, KOZHIKODE-32. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 31286 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is running a commercial complex in the name and style 'Sky Tower' filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P2. In Ext.P2, it is stated that there is a theft of electrical energy and as per the same, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.23,97,494/-. It is only a provisional assessment as is obvious from Ext.P1. In terms of the provisions under Section 126(3) of Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioner is entitled to file an objection if he is aggrieved by Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, he has filed Ext.P3 objection against Ext.P2. The contention of the petitioner is that the allegation of theft of electrical energy is absolutely unsustainable. In the circumstances, as per Ext.P3, the petitioner has requested for permission to file a detailed reply, rather, objection against Ext.P2 after perusing the site mahazar. This Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to quash Ext.P2 and to direct the third respondent to furnish site mahazar along with detailed calculation statement and also to issue final assessment bill. W.P.(C) NO.31286/2010 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel. The learned standing counsel submitted that the site mahzar would suggest that it was prepared in the presence of one Mr.Shameer, who introduced himself as the supervisor of Sky Tower. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the same. Admittedly, after the institution of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has received the site mahazar and therefore, there is no necessity to consider the said controversy and there is no reason for considering the second relief. With respect to the first relief sought for by the petitioner, he has already invoked the statutory remedy under Section 126(3) and preferred Ext.P3 before the appropriate authority. Since the petitioner has already preferred objection in terms of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to seek the said relief, as well at this stage. True that the petitioner has requested for permission to file a detailed objection on receipt of the site mahazar. Therefore, it will be open to the petitioner to file a detailed objection to supplement Ext.P3. The petitioner may do so within two weeks from today. In case the petitioner submits such a detailed objection, the third respondent shall consider the same as part of Ext.P3 and pass orders on Ext.P3, in W.P.(C) NO.31286/2010 3 accordance with the provisions under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act. This Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.31286/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.31286/2010 5