IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32035 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.A.POULOSE, MANJALY HOUSE, AYROOR.P.O. ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KUNNUKARA ERNAKULAM DIST. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.32035 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity from the respondent. On allegation of using unauthorised additional load, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Originally Ext.P2 bill was issued for an amount of Rs.4800/-, which has been paid by the petitioner as penal charges. Again Ext.P8 bill has been issued for the very same reason. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 in this writ petition. 2. The learned standing counsel for the KSEB submits that Ext.P2 bill is in respect of penalty for fixed charges and Ext.P8 is in respect of penalty for energy charges. The petitioner disputes the same. 3. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the rival contentions in so far as under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, the matter has to be decided finally after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner has already filed Ext.P9 objections. In the above circumstances, Ext.P8 shall be considered as a provisional demand and the respondent shall consider the petitioner's objections to the same and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible. Needless to say, till final orders are passed, demand by Ext.P8 shall not be enforced. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2