IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8774 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- CHRISTUDAS.K, S/O.KARUPPAYYA, AGED 75 YEARS, SELVA BHAVAN, 55TH MILE, KARADIKKUZHY.P.O, PEERMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 537. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TAHASILDAR, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PEERMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. MATHEW GEORGE V ADAKKEL R2 AND R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 8774 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The case of the petitioner is that the liability mulcted on the shoulders of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 assessment order is not in conformity with the statutory provisions contained in S.126 of the Electricity Act and hence it was sought to be objected by filing Ext.P5 statement of objections. However, without any regard to the pendency of Ext.P5, further proceedings were pursued as borne by Exts. P6 and P7, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition challenging the impugned proceedings . 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instruction, submits that Ext.P3 could be taken as 'provisional assessment order' and that Ext.P5 objection preferred by the petitioner will be considered and the proceedings will be finalised only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel also submits that, on inspection at the premises of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was indulging in 'theft of electrical energy', which is stated as admitted from the part of the W.P.(C) No. 8774 OF 2010 2 petitioner, while seeking to compound the offence. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the factual position stands entirely on a different pedestal and the petitioner is proposing to file an additional objection in furtherance to Ext. P5. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the third respondent is directed to treat Ext. P3 as a 'provisional assessment order' and the proceedings shall be finalised considering Ext. P5 as well as supplementary objections, if any, to be filed by the petitioner within one week. Final orders shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law at the earliest, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that till such final orders are passed, all further coercive proceedings in respect of the above cause of action shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk