IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18383 of 2004(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K. RADHAKRISHNA PILLA, MUGALIL HOUSE, KODUMON, ADOOR TALUK, LPATHANAMTHITTA REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.C.K. THANKAPPAN, SREENILAYAM, M.C. ROAD, ADOOR. BY SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.T.R.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, ADOOR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, ELAMKULAM. 4. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, ADOOR. BY MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF SITE MAHAZAR DT 16.6.04. P2 COPY OF PENAL BILL DT 16.6.04. P3 COPY OF NOTICE DT 16.6.04. P4 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT 23.2.04. P5 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICES DT 23.6.03., 23.8.03 & 23.10.03. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF SITE MAHAZAR DT 16.6.04. R1(B) COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH R1(C) COPY OF CALCULATION STATEMENT. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 18383 OF 2004 L ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 bill and Ext.P3 notice. On the basis of Ext.P1 mahazar, apparently, Exts.P2 and P3 are issued. A counter affidavit is filed. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that action is taken against the petitioner alleging tampering of the electric meter and theft of electricity. But, he invokes section 126 of the Electricity Act and contends that the petitioner is not given any provisional bill and no opportunity was given to state his objection. Admittedly, the inspection was after the enforcement of the Electricity Act. In such circumstances, the respondent was bound to issue a provisional bill and finalise as per the provisions under section 126 of the Electricity Act. There is already an interim order directing the respondents to restore connection. Learned standing counsel points out that the petitioner can file objection before the 3rd WPC.18383/04 : 2 : respondent. 3. In such circumstances, writ petition is disposed of as follows. If the petitioner files objection to Ext.P2 within ten days from today, the 3rd respondent will take a decision thereon in accordance with law within one month from the date of filing of the objection, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE