IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31567 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BAVENS STUDIO, PULICKAL, J.C.ITTYERAH SHOPPING COMPLEX, KANJIKUZHI JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM - 686 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, PRASAD GEORGE CHERIAN. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELETRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTTAYAM EAST. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APTS UNIT, KSEB, KOLLAM. 3. SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOTTAYAM. 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 5. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 5 ADV.T.K.KUNHABDULLA, SC FOR R5. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31567 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is running a small scale industrial unit. He submits it is a computerised colour photo printing lab. The consumer number of his connection relevant for the purpose of this case is 5598 of Electrical Section, Kottayam. It is an LT IV industrial connection. Recently, the Anti Power Theft Squad made an inspection in the petitioner's unit and prepared Ext.P4, Mahazar. The same would show that in that studio the petitioner is running a show room for the sale of camera and its accessories. The goods offered for sale include Digital and ordinary cameras manufactured by Sony, Kodak, Tripode stand, photo film, CD Rom, Album, camera battery, camera lights, memory cards etc. In that mahazar, there is a finding that, the petitioner is misusing the LT IV electricity connection for the above said commercial activities, which will come under tariff LT VIIA . Based on that finding, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P5 bill along with Ext.P5(a) computation statement. W.P.(C) No.31567/2008 2 Challenging Exts.P5 and P5(a) this writ petition is filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the K.S.E.B. It is pointed out by the learned standing counsel that Exts.P5 and Ext.P5(a) taken together is a provisional assessment order under Section 126(2) of Electricity Act, 2003. If the petitioner is aggrieved by that, he has to file objection against the same. In that event, the assessing officer shall pass final orders on his objection, within 30 days from the date of service of the provisional assessment order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order, apart from the remedy available to him under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, he has remedies under the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006, it is submitted. 3. We notice that the petitioner has statutory remedies against Exts.P5 and P5(a). Without invoking them, he has rushed to this Court making a bald allegation that those remedies are not efficacious. We are not inclined to accept that submission. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he W.P.(C) No.31567/2008 3 apprehends the power supply will be disconnected, immediately. The apprehension is based on the fact that Ext.P5 has been served in the printed format, which is styled as a demand cum disconnection notice. But the said grievance no longer survives, in view of the submission of the learned standing counsel that on receipt of a provisional assessment order under Section 126(2) of the Act, if the petitioner files his objections, immediately the assessing officer will pass final orders under Section 126(3) and only thereafter, the demand will become enforceable. In view of the above position, the writ petition is closed, recording the above submission of the learned standing counsel and without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps