IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9143 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ACHU C.M., LISIE HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682 018. BY ADV. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL SECTION-MAJOR, OPPOSITE JN INTERNATIONAL STADIUM, KALOOR COCHIN-682017. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 9143 OF 2009 K -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 and seeks a direction to consider Exts.P2 and P4 complaints. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board. 2. Today, when the matter came up, learned standing counsel submits that a revised Bill has been issued and that Ext.P5 does not survive. In such circumstances, there is no question of quashing Ext.P5. Regarding Exts.P2 and P4 complaints, it is stated that Ext.P2 is dated 10.10.2008 and in regard to Ext.P4, learned standing counsel submits that a decision will be taken on Ext.P4. It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel that there was an inspection and it was found that the Meter is faulty. He also submitted that it is for the petitioner to comply with the formalities and get the Meter WPC.9143/09 K 2 sent for testing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is agreeable for that. It is pointed out that Ext.P4 , may not lie as there is no Office at Kaloor and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Palarivattom Sub Division, Ernakulam is the person to consider. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: The second respondent will make over Ext.P4 to the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Palarivattom Sub Division, Ernakulam within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and the said Officer will consider and take a decision on Ext.P4 in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Regarding the meter found to be defective on inspection, it is for the petitioner to comply with the necessary formalities and to have the Meter tested and it is open to him to pursue the matter. It is made clear that I have not pronounced on the legality of the revised Bill, which is not challenged before me, and it is left WPC.9143/09 K 3 open to the petitioner to pursue such remedies as are available in law, if he is aggrieved against the revised Bill. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge