IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27505 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ E.MOHAMMED HAJI, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, PARAMAL HOUSE, A.C.BAZAR, P.O.,MOONNIYUR PIN 676 311, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHELARI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER K.S.E.B CIRCLE OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 27505 OF 2008 Y ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P7. The matter has been taken for final hearing by the consent of the parties. There is a provisional bill under section 126 of the Electricity Act issued to the petitioner. Petitioner had approached this court earlier by filing WP(C) No.19084/08 and this court by Ext.P3 judgment directed the petitioner to file objection and further directed that the objection is to be considered. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 objection and Ext.P6 additional objection. 2. I heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that though the petitioner had filed objections, Ext.P7 order has been passed without considering the objections. In Ext.P7, it is stated that nothing new is brought out and that if the petitioner has any further objection, he can approach the Deputy Chief Engineer. Ext.P7 warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. A provisional bill casting liability came to be issued to the WPC.27505/08 : 2 : petitioner. Petitioner filed objection to the same. The law enjoins giving an opportunity to the party. The filing of objection and the hearing cannot be reduced to an empty formality. It has to be meaningful and also a medium for correcting any error into which the statutory authority may have fallen in the first place. It is a very valuable right. Also the statute contemplates payment of 50% of the amount as condition for filing the appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer under section 127 of the Act. The statutory authority is expected to apply his mind to the objections and consider the same and pass an order. Ext.P7 betrays disregard of the true role assigned to the authority under the statute. 3. In such circumstances, Ext.P7 is quashed and the 2nd respondent will consider the matter afresh with an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner and pass orders within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, there will be no disconnection of the power supply. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks