IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.A.No.1574 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.29048/2007-G, DATED 10/12/2007. .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- ---------------------------------------- BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONL ENGINEER, VENJARAMOODU DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------------- 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR SECTION, KSEB, KAZHAKKUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION), NALANCHIRA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, ALONG WITH W.A NO.1800 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.Nos.1574 of 2008 & 1800 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th November, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. W.A.No.1574 of 2008 is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.29048 of 2007 dated 10.12.2007. (2) By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the demand raised by the respondents for payment of certain arrears of electricity charges, had directed the petitioner, if they so desires, to prefer an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, as provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. (3) Pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner, in fact, has filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer. (4) In view of the filing of the appeal by the appellant/petitioner, in our opinion, the appellant has complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, in our opinion, the appellant cannot call in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition. (5) Accordingly, we dispose of W.A.No.1574 of 2008, as having become unnecessary. WA.Nos.1574 & 1800 of 2008 - 2 - (6) In W.A.1800 of 2008, the appellant/petitioner calls in question the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.16267 of 2008, dated 20.06.2008. (7) Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C). No.29048 of 2007 dated 10.12.2007, the appellant/petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer. For entertaining the appeal, by Exhibit P3 order, the Deputy Chief Engineer has directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the amounts demanded by the respondents on reassessment. (8) The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, has directed the petitioner to pay 50% of Rs.5,03,046/-. (9) It is the correctness or otherwise of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition is called in question in W.A.No.1800 of 2008. (10) The Deputy Chief Engineer has not decided the case on merits. He has only directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount demanded by the respondents for entertaining the appeal. If, for any reason, the appellant succeeds in the appeal filed before the Deputy Chief Engineer, the amounts deposited by the appellant will, naturally, be refunded to it. Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. (11) Having gone through the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the firm opinion, that, the learned Single Judge has not WA.Nos.1574 & 1800 of 2008 - 3 - committed any error, whatsoever, which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, this appeal also requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (12) However, we make it clear, that, in the event of the Deputy Chief Engineer allowing the appeal filed by the appellant, the amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to it. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge