IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2905 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S/O.G.GOPALA PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS, DEVAKI BHAVANAM, PODIYADI.P.O, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SMT.G.R.LEKSHMI SRI.RINOY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, MANIPUZHA, THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 2905 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the course and events being pursued by the respondent Board in having issued Ext.P1 Bill, which according to the petitioner is absolutely without any rhyme or reason for the fact that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and hence is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The respondents have filed counter affidavit also producing copies of the relevant documents. The learned standing counsel submits with reference to the counter affidavit that the case put forth by the petitioner as to the denial of opportunity of hearing is totally wrong and misconceived. The learned standing counsel submits that the hearing scheduled earlier was adjourned to 05.01.2010 as borne by Ext.R3(c) and the petitioner in fact had appeared before the concerned authority as borne by Ext.R3(d) proceedings. It was after hearing the petitioner that the matter was finalized as evident from Ext.R3(e) and it was accordingly that Ext.P1 bill was raised on the petitioner. It is without any regard to the actual facts and figures as above, that the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court, by giving a totally distorted version, WP(C) No.2905/2010 2 which is not liable to be entertained under any circumstance, submits the learned standing counsel. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner, if at all aggrieved, is having an effective alternate remedy provided under Section 127 (2) of the Act. 3. After hearing both the sides, this Court does not find it necessary to enter into the merits of the case; especially in view of the alternate remedy stated as available to the petitioner. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy as provided under the statute. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc