IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19631 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- IBRAHIM KUNJU, PRESIDENT, EMDEES CHARITABLE TRUST HOSPITAL, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 5. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 19631 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 issued by the third respondent and Ext.P8 issued by the fourth respondent. He seeks a direction to send the meter for testing as directed in Ext.P4 judgment and to direct the fifth respondent to test the meter and prepare a report within a time frame. Direction is sought to reconsider Ext.P3 afresh and to consider Ext.P7 without insisting on further payment. 2. Petitioner is a consumer and President of EMDEES Charitable Trust Hospital, Kollam. The second respondent conducted an inspection on 4.2.2008, prepared Ext.P1 mahazar and issued Ext.P2 provisional bill, to which petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation. Petitioner approached this court with W.P.(C) 5144 of 2008. That writ petition culminated in Ext.P4 judgment by which a direction was issued to consider the objections of the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation. However Ext.P6 order dated 15.5.2008 was passed confirming the provisional bill. Thereupon the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 appeal. Petitioner has been called upon by Ext.P8 to deposit 50% of the penal bill and processing fee. WPC.19631/2008. 2 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Johnson Gomez and the learned Standing Counsel. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Ext.P6 has been issued in violation of the direction contained in Ext.P4 judgment. Petitioner was not given opportunity of being heard. What actually happened was that the third respondent obtained a representation from the petitioner for getting reconnection on 13.3.2008 and he was made to write that a hearing was conducted. He would stoutly deny the case of theft. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of theft against the petitioner is completely erroneous. Learned Standing Counsel got instructions and submits that actually a hearing was held as stated in Ext.P6 order. Petitioner has already approached the appellate authority. In such circumstances, I do not think that I need entertain this writ petition, as already petitioner has approached the alternate forum. The alternate forum is a forum which can enter findings of fact. In a disputed case of this nature I think that the petitioner has an effective remedy in the form of appeal, which infact he had availed also. Therefore, I am not inclined to consider the challenge to Ext.P6 in this writ petition. But I make it clear that the appellate authority will consider each and every contention raised by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. The appellate authority WPC.19631/2008. 3 will bear in mind that what is involved is a grave allegation that the petitioner has committed theft. Therefore, it becomes his bounden duty to apply his mind to the contentions raised by the petitioner in the matter. Petitioner is granted two weeks time to comply with Ext.P8. It is also open to the petitioner to raise the contention that the meter may be tested by the authority. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb