IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32383 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.MUSTAFA AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN AMBALIL HOUSE, PULIKKAL P.O.,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, PULIKKAL SECTION, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSEB, KONDOTTY. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, MANJERI. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SC SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 32383 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing. 2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P11 and seeks a declaration that the second respondent appellate authority has no jurisdiction to pass orders on the objection filed before the original authority. A direction is also sought to the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 objection. 3. There is an inspection in the industrial unit of the petitioner and Ext.P4 mahazar was prepared. Petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 demand notice. Petitioner filed Ext.P6 objection before the first respondent. Electric connection came to be disconnected. Petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.28109 of 2007, which came to be disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment. In Ext.P7 this court directed that the petitioner can file objection against the provisional bill and the bill will be finalized after hearing the petitioner and if the petitioner has nay grievance against the final bill, he can file appeal against the same. The Deputy Chief Engineer, the second respondent, issued a notice apparently treating it as an appeal petition. Ext.P9 is yet another notice issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer. WPC.32383/2008. 2 Ext.P10 is the statement filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Chief Engineer. The Deputy Chief Engineer proceeded to pass orders as Ext.P11 rejecting the contention of the petitioner. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner besides the learned Standing Counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the authority to finalize the objection is the Assistant Engineer. The Deputy Chief Engineer is the appellate authority under the Statute and he can only entertain the appeal against the final assessement under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Section 126 contemplates a provisional demand and against a provisional demand, objection can be filed before the Assistant Engineer and the Assistant Engineer has to take a decision on the same and the appeal lies only against the same. It is this, which was contemplated in Ext.P7 judgment also. 6. It may be true that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 before the Deputy Chief Engineer. But by consent jurisdiction cannot be conferred, which is not otherwise available. In such circumstances, I feel that Ext.P11 has no legs to stand on. Ext.P11 is quashed. The first respondent will consider Ext.P6 objection with opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decision will be taken WPC.32383/2008. 3 within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb