IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31152 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VIPIN V, S/O.M.C.VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 26, VIMALALAYAM, SOUTH EAST THAZHAVA SRP MARKET, PO KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER AND ASSESSING OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KSEB ELECTRICAL SECTION, CANTONMENT, KOLLAM 691 001 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM 691 001 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP BY THE SECRETARY, VAIDUTHY BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN BEEN FINALLY HEAR ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON 01/02/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DT.3.8.2009. P2: PHOTOCOPY OF MAHAZAR. P3: PHOTOCOPY OF PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT DT.5.8.2010. P4: PHOTOCOPY OF OBJECITON DT.18.9.2010. P5: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DT.5.10.2010. P6: PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.5.10.2010. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.31152 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the W.P.(C) is whether the KSEB rightly treated the connection used for educational purpose as unauthorised use falling under tariff item VII A. Standing Counsel for the KSEB submitted that the petitioner was given LT-IV connection which is for industrial use and the same was used for commercial purpose. Since the bill raised is one under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, the appellant has statutory remedy by way of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 127. We feel a matter pertaining to classification and allegation of unauthorised use should be decided by the appellate authority by looking into the facts alleged and the tariff applicable. Consequently we decline to decide the case on merits. However, considering the nature of use i.e. for education purpose, we feel the requirement of payment of 50% as a condition for filing appeal causes hardship to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we dispose of 2 the W.P.(C) with direction to the petitioner to pay Rupees one lakh and file the appeal after such payment within a period of three weeks from now and if appeal is filed as above, the appellate authority will entertain the appeal and decide the case on merits within a period of six weeks thereafter. No recovery of the balance amount due under the disputed bill should be made for two months from date of filing appeal and thereafter recovery will be based on orders in appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms