IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26775 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ E.P. JACOB, S/O E.K. PAULOSE, AGED ABOUT 54, RESIDING AT EDAKALATHOOR KUTTICHAKKU, EDAKKALATHOOR HOUSE, THOYAKKAVU, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) SRI.A.D.BENNY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICITY DIVISION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KANDASSAMKADAVU P.O., KANDASSAMKADAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VENKIDANGU P.O., VENKIDANGU, THRISSUR DIST. 5. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 26775 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner's father was a consumer of electricity. There was an inspection by the APTS and a demand was made. It is seen that the demand was challenged by the petitioner's father by filing a suit as OS 6/2000 before the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad. Ultimately the suit was dismissed. The matter was carried in appeal by filing A.S.No.288/2007. In the meantime petitioner's father expired on 13.6.2006. According to the petitioner, subsequently the appeal also was dismissed. 2. It is stated that now by Ext.P12 demand has been made to the petitioner to clear the dues and according to the petitioner Ext.P12 was served on him on 18.8.2008 and that even before the expiry of the appeal period, respondents are taking action for disconnection of the power supply. It is on this apprehension this writ petition is filed. 3. Now that Ext.P12 has been served on the petitioner, he is entitled to avail of the appellate remedy provided for in the Electricity Supply Code 2005 and the Indian Electricity Act 2003. However, the appellate remedy is WP(C) 26775/08 2 conditional and according to the standing counsel for the respondents, a pre-deposit of 50% is necessary to maintain the appeal. 4. Now that the petitioner apprehends disconnection of power supply even during the time permitted for filing an appeal, I feel that apprehension should be redressed. 5. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition directing that within the period specified for filing appeal as provided in clause 17 of the Electricity Supply Code 2005 read with sec.127 of the Electricity Act, it will be open to the petitioner to file his appeal. It is directed that in the meanwhile the supply to the petitioner's premises shall not be disconnected, if the petitioner remits 50% of the amount due under Ext.P3 which, if paid, will necessarily be treated as the amount payable for maintaining the appeal. The deposit shall be made within one week from today. It is clarified that if payment is not made as above or if appeal is not filed, it will be open to the respondents to take such action as is permissible in law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-