IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 115 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3849/2004 Dated 06/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ MAHALAKSHMI FUELS, REPRESENTED BY P.RAMACHANDRAN, MANAGING PARTNER, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. RUSSELL, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.115 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. A consumer of electrical energy supplied by the Kerala State Electricity Board, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3849 of 2004 dated 6th July, 2007 is before us in this appeal. 2) The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Eloor had passed an order directing the petitioner to pay penal electricity charges for certain omissions and commissions said to have been committed by the petitioner while consuming electrical energy. Aggrieved by the said demand made by the Assistant Engineer, petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kalamassery. In the memorandum of appeal, the consumer had raised several contentions before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority without considering anyone of the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, has rejected the appeal filed by the consumer. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner was before this Court in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents in the writ petition to reduce the penal charges from three times to 1½ times and issue revised bills. As we have already observed, aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this appeal. (3) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would bring to our notice the order passed by the first appellate authority and thereafter submits that the first appellate authority without considering anyone of the contentions W.A.No.115 of 2008 2 raised by the appellant before the first appellate authority could not have rejected the appeal. Learned counsel would further contend that the order passed by the first appellate authority is a non-speaking order and therefore is in violation of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (4) Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board, tries to justify the impugned order. (5) We have carefully perused the order passed by the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority has noticed several grounds raised by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and after noticing those grounds, the first appellate authority by a one line order has rejected the appeal. (6) A perusal of the order passed by the first appellate authority would clearly indicate that there is total non-application of mind by the first appellate authority while disposing of the appeal filed by the consumer. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the first appellate authority is a non-speaking order and therefore, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the said order passed by the first appellate authority requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this Court in the course of the order. (7) Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER i) The orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3849 of 2004 dated 6th July, 2007 is set aside. W.A.No.115 of 2008 3 ii) The order passed by the first appellate authority dated 20.1.2004 and the consequential order passed by the Assistant Engineer dated 28.1.2004 are also set aside and the matter is remanded to the first appellate authority to redo the same in accordance with law and pass a speaking order after considering the grounds raised by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal. iii) All the other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns