IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1365 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.SOLAR PRODUCTS, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683547, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MS.P.A.SAKEENA. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAZHAKULAM, MUDICKAL P.O.683547. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.1365 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner firm is a consumer of electrical energy. The business premises of the petitioner firm was inspected by the respondent on 28.12.2010. Thereafter Ext.P1 provisional order accompanied by Ext.P2 invoice was issued demanding payment of the sum of Rs.20,90,050/-. Upon receipt of Ext.P1 provisional order the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 objections dated 8.1.2011. Two days thereafter the sole respondent issued Ext.P4 letter informing the petitioners that they are liable to pay the sum of Rs.20,90,050/- as penalty for unauthorised use of energy. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that under Regulation 51(3) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 and section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the respondent had a duty to hear the petitioner and pass a final order and that having not been done, Ext.P4 cannot be sustained. 2. Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned standing counsel appearing W.P(C).No.1365 of 2011 -:2:- for the respondent Board fairly conceded that before Ext.P4 was issued the respondent ought to have issued a final order determining the amount payable, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The learned standing counsel submitted that the respondent will hear the petitioner and pass a final order after adverting to the various contentions raised in Ext.P3. In the light of the submissions made at the Bar and having regard to the fact that before Ext.P4 was issued the petitioner was not heard and the petitioner's contentions were not considered and a final order in terms of Regulation 51(3) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 and section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not passed, I allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P4 and direct the respondent to pass a final order after adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P3 reply and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Till such time, the demand made in Exts.P1 and P2 shall not be enforced. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.1365 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 14th January, 2011