IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9490 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.P.MOHAMMED, PROPRIETOR, MARK FIBRE, P.O.VENGARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTSANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM, K.S.E.B. NORTHERN REGION, GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-32. 4. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANNUR. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, MADAI VILLAGE, P.O.MADAI, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 9490 OF 2009 E -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a consumer of electricity. He challenges Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 is a demand notice under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Ext.P2 purports to be arrear bill. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 application before the third respondent. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned standing counsel submits that Ext.P3 complaint actually takes in the complaint against additional load. Learned standing counsel correctly points out that such a complaint may not be maintainable before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had carried the matter in Appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act before the Deputy Chief Engineer and the WPC.9490/09 E 2 petitioner is prepared to pay the amount as directed by the Deputy Chief Engineer in the Appeal. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: The second respondent will issue to the petitioner a revised bill on the basis of the order of the Deputy Chief Engineer and indicate the amount to be paid by the petitioner. Petitioner is granted two weeks' time to pay the said amount from the date of receipt of the communication. There will be a direction to the third respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P3 except in so far as it relates to the matter of unauthorised load already covered by the decision of the Deputy Chief Engineer in Appeal. This will be done with opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The recovery steps pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2, in so far as they relate to the demand for the charges relatable to the unauthorised load covered by the Deputy Chief Engineer, will be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of serving the revised bill and if the WPC.9490/09 E 3 petitioner does not pay the amount within two weeks, recovery can be proceeded in the said regard. In regard to other aspects covered by Ext.P3, recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken by the fourth respondent. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge