IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 462 of 2008 -------------------- (AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) 33232 OF 2007 DATED 12.11.2007) APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUDHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), K.S.E.BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ NAVARTNA RICE PRODUCTS, NEELESWARAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SHRI P.B. SAHASRANAMAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... W.A. No. 462 OF 2008 ................................................................................... Dated this the 13th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, C.J.: This Writ Appeal is directed against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C)No. 33232 of 2007 dated 12th November, 2007. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has directed the respondents to hand over the meter and other equipments seized from the possession of the petitioner by Ext.P3 mahazar dated 30.09.2006 for inspection by the Chief Electrical Inspector or such subordinate officer as may be authorised by the Chief Electrical Inspector , who shall ensure that the equipments are tested to determine whether the case could be treated as one of theft and whether the burning of the meter could be attributed to the petitioner. Further, the learned single Judge has granted an interim stay of recovery of balance amount in terms of Ext.P9 order. 2. The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy through an electric meter bearing No.HTB. 26/4260. There was a surprise inspection by the respondent-authority on 30.9.2006. After such inspection, Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices were issued. Aggrieved by those demand notices, the petitioner was before this court on an earlier occasion in W.P.(C)No. 26634 of 2006. This Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition by its order dated 31.10.2006 relegating the petitioner to prefer an appeal, if for any reason, he is aggrieved by Exts. P4 and P5 demand notices. 3. Pursuant to the direction in the judgment in W.P.(C) 26634 of 2006, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Special Officer W.A. No. 462 OF 2008 2 (Revenue), K.S.E.B., Vydhudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellate authority, by its order dated 29th October, 2007 has rejected the appeal and thereby has confirmed Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices issued by the 2nd respondent-authority. Aggrieved by Exts. P4 and P5 demand notices and Ext.P9 order passed by the 2nd respondent-authority, the petitioner is before this court for the following reliefs. They are : (i) to quash Exts.P4, P5 and P9 ; and (ii) to grant such other reliefs. 4. The learned single Judge while entertaining the Writ Petition has granted an interim relief which was not even asked for by the consumer/petitioner. Aggrieved by certain directions issued by the learned single Judge, the appellants are before this court in this appeal. 5. Shri C.K. Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board would submit, that, a prayer which was not even asked for by the petitioner/consumer ought not to have been granted by the learned single Judge. Apart from that, the learned counsel would submit that under the Electricity Act, 2003 and also the regulations of the Board, the question of testing the meter by the Chief Electrical Inspector or any other subordinate officer is not contemplated. Therefore, the interim order passed by the learned single Judge requires to be annulled by this Court. 6. Shri P.B. Sahasranaman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order. 7. As we have already indicated, the consumer/petitioner was questioning before this court only Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices issued by W.A. No. 462 OF 2008 3 the 2nd respondent-authority and also the order passed by the first appellate authority. While exercising the supervisory jurisdiction by this Court in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the power of interference is limited to seeing that the quasi judicial authorities and the tribunals function within the limits of its authority. The contours of jurisdiction under Article 227 are very well defined. It is not in the nature of an appellate jurisdiction nor in the nature of second appeal on facts, nor does it contemplate indeterminate rounds of adjudication on facts. The High Court, in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction inhering in it as a court of record, to ensure that inferior tribunals act within their bounds and not perversely. The High Court cannot, in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into court of appeal. We hasten to add, if the findings are based on no material, or otherwise perverse or the lower authority has outstepped the limits of jurisdiction, the High Court could exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. In the present case what was expected was only to see whether the order passed by the appellate authority is in accordance with the provisions of Electricity Act and the regulations of the Board. If for any reason if the court comes to the conclusion, the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of the Act or in violations of the procedure prescribed or in violation of principles of natural justice, the best course would be to set aside order and remand the matter to the authority with such directions as permissible in law, instead of directing a denovo enquiry on facts by the authorities. Since this procedure is not adopted and denovo enquiry is ordered by way of an interim order, we W.A. No. 462 OF 2008 4 cannot sustain the impugned order. 9. In that view of the matter, we cannot sustain the interim order passed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge requires to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, we pass the following: O R D E R (i) The interim order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) 33232 of 2007 dated 12th November, 2007 is set aside. (ii) A request is made to the learned single Judge to decide the matter on merits. (iii) In the meanwhile, the interim order granted by the learned single Judge, staying the recovery of amounts under Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices and P9 order passed by the first appellate authority will enure to the benefit of the respondent/petitioner for a further period of two weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk/DK.