IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30446 of 2009(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- R.SREEDHARAN NAIR S/O. (LATE) N. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, KANCHI TOURIST HOME, T.C.28/1641,PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SMT.K.R.RIJA, MR.ANIL KUMAR A.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, FORT SECTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST. ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVSION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 30446 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has been served with Ext.P1 provisional order alleging unauthorised temporary extension and use of unauthorised additional load. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 objection against the same. By Ext.P3 judgment in W.P(C) No. 20034 of 2009, this court directed the Assistant Executive Engineer to dispose of Ext.P2 objections filed by the petitioner and not to insist on payment of the disputed amounts until orders are passed. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that without passing final orders pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, again for subsequent period, Ext.P4 provisional bill has been issued. According to the petitioner, when the question regarding sustainability of demand for penalty for alleged unauthorised additional load is pending consideration as per Exts.P1 and P2, it is unjust to issue further bills for subsequent periods. The learned standing counsel points out that in the first paragraph of the writ petition itself the petitioner admits that he has taken an unauthorised temporary extension which would amount to W.P(C) No. 30446 of 2009 -2- unauthorised additional load also. Therefore unless the petitioner files an application for regularisation of unauthorised additional load, the respondents are perfectly justified in issuing penal bills for subsequent periods also until the petitioner gets his unauthorised additional load regularised in accordance with law. The learned standing counsel submits that the petitioner has not even applied for regularisation of the unauthorised additional load yet. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. From Ext.P4, I find that the same is only a provisional assessment bill. Therefore certainly the petitioner is entitled to file objections and the 3rd respondent has to pass a final order pursuant thereto. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: The petitioner shall file objections to Ext.P4 within one week. The 3rd respondent shall consider the objections also along with Ext.P2 objections against Ext.P1 bill and pass final orders pursuant to Exts.P1 and P4 expeditiously. This is only if Ext.P1 has not yet been finalised. If Ext.P1 has already been finalised, the 3rd respondent shall consider objections against W.P(C) No. 30446 of 2009 -3- Ext.P4 independently and pass final orders in respect of the same also. Until orders are so passed the petitioner shall not be required to pay the amounts covered by Ext.P4 bill. But I make it clear that this judgment will not relieve the petitioner from paying the dues for current period which the petitioner shall duly pay. The contention of the parties are left open to be agitated. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs