IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 1937 of 2009 ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22746/2009 Dated 11/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------- VARGHESE MATHEW, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOTEL AMRUTHU, THOPPUMPADY. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE SRI.K.B.SAJAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MATTANCHERRY, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. 3. THE ASST. ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, THOPPUMPADY SECTION, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A. K. Basheer J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1937 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009. Judgment Bannurmath, CJ: Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition, present appeal is filed. 2. Petitioner is a tenant having a FL-3 licence and he is a consumer of electricity from the Thoppumpady Electrical Section. After the expiry of the landlord, though his widow applied for additional allocation of power, the proceedings were delayed only on the ground that proper legal heirship certificate is not produced. However in the meanwhile, Exts.P5 to P7 bills of demand towards penalty for non-payment of charges and unauthorised use of additional load for the period from August 2007 to May 2008 are issued to the petitioner/respondent. Aggrieved by the demand notices the petitioner/appellant approached this Court in the impugned writ petition. Considering the fact that there is alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the order. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in the absence of proper assessment as required under the law, the demand notice could not have been issued. WA.1937/2009. : 2 : Keeping in view the fact that it was only a demand notice and if there is wrong assessment or calculations, the appellant is not required to pay any penalty and amount as demanded and he has got efficacious remedy of approaching the authority under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, the learned single Judge declined to interfere. The findings of the learned single Judge that on the face of efficacious alternate remedy writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked is justified. We find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge. 4. So far as the regularisation of additional load is concerned, we have not gone into the question since it is for the authorities to consider the same in accordance with law. However we direct the authorities to consider the same expeditiously after giving opportunity to the petitioner and legal representatives of his landlord. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer Judge an.