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 TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 1681 of 2009 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18502/2009 Dated 02/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ AISHA BEEVI, W/O.SHAJIDEEN M.NAZEEB, T.C.NO.34/1289, P.T.P.NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VELLAYAMBALAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VELLAYAMBALAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1681 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. She had filed the writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta affirming the action of the Kerala State Electricity Board in disconnecting electric supply to her residential premises. Ext.P6 invoice issued by the Board was also sought to be quashed by the appellant. 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that Ext.P6 demand had been raised by the respondents in terms of the provisions contained in Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was also held that the Upa Lok Ayukta had upheld the demand after considering the entire aspects of the case. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board. W.A.No.1681 of 2009. - 2 - 4. A perusal of Exts.P6 and P7 demand notices issued by the Board will not reveal any details as regards computation of the alleged liability. Learned Standing Counsel submits that if there is any error in computation, that will be rectified. He further submits that a statutory remedy is available to the appellant which she has to necessarily avail of. However, in order to enable the appellant to avail of that remedy, the Board has to issue details of computation which is totally absent in Ext.P7. 5. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this writ appeal need not be kept pending on the file of this Court any further and that the appellant can be relegated to the statutory remedy available to her. Therefore, the writ appeal is disposed of with the following directions: i) The appellant shall remit a sum of Rs.12000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) within one week from today. ii) In the meanwhile, the respondents shall furnish a detailed statement indicating details of computation of the actual liability due from the appellant. W.A.No.1681 of 2009. - 3 - iii) On receipt of the said statement it will be open to the appellant to approach the statutory authority for appropriate remedies within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said communication. iv) The statutory authority shall pass appropriate orders on the objection of the appellant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said objection after affording her sufficient opportunity to be heard. Writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns