IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20444 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.A. ALI, PROPRIETOR, FATHIMA INDUSTRIES, MEKKALADY, KALADY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM MR.JYOTHISH J.KALLINGAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, CENTRAL SECETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E. BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION,KALADY - 683574. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E. BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR, 5. APTS, K.S.E. BOARD, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.20444 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a stone crusher unit. He is availing of supply of electrical energy under LT IV tariff with the connected load of 68 KW. According to the petitioner, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the premises on 25/06/2009, and unauthorised additional load of 35 KW is alleged to have been found. Ext.P1 is the mahazar that was prepared based on which Ext.P2 bill for Rs.1,84,991/- was issued. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 objection as provided under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. But, however, the 3rd respondent confirmed Ext.P2 as per Ext.P4. He filed Ext.P5 appeal before the 4th respondent. Complaining that there is delay in considering the appeal and also that Ext.P4 order is illegal, this writ petition is filed. 2. Having regard to the fact that statutory remedy of appeal as provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act is available to the petitioner, I do not think that this Court will be justified in examining the merits of the contentions raised. Therefore, the petitioner necessarily has to prosecute the appellate remedy that is available. WP(C) No.20444/2009 -2- 3. However, in so far as Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner before the 4th respondent is concerned, the said appeal is not in terms of the form prescribed in the Kerala State Electricity (Procedure for Filing Appeal Before the Appellate Authority) Regulations, 2005. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in directing consideration of Ext.P5 also. 4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to file an appeal in terms of the form prescribed in the Regulations referred to above, and in compliance with the conditions laid down in that behalf. It is directed that if an appeal is received as above, the 4th respondent shall consider the same, and pass orders thereon with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks thereafter. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that along with Ext.P5, the defective appeal, the petitioner has paid the fee prescribed for filing appeal, and if so, it is directed that the same will be treated as the fee that is payable for the appeal to be filed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg