IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9997 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TATA TELE SERVICES LTD.,HAVING ITS REG: OFFICE AT TOWER 1,10TH FLOOR,JEEVAN BHARATHI, 124,CANNAUGHT CIRCUS,NEW DELHI AND LOCAL OFFICE AT J & CO CHAMBERS,MANIMALA RAOD,EDAPALLY,COCHIN-24, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,MR.BOBBY JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHEPPAD,ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,(APPELLATE AUTHORITY),ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9997 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. The officers of Electrical Section, Chepad along with the officers of the Anti Power Theft Squad jointly inspected the premises of the petitioner. After such inspection, it was found that there was unauthorised use of energy and also unauthorised extension. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared and Ext.P3 invoice dated 24.9.2009 was issued demanding payment of Rs.2,55,000/- as energy charges. It was accompanied by a provisional order of assessment. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 objections. The objections were over ruled and Ext.P4 final assessment order was passed which was served on the petitioner along with Ext.P3 demand notice. Challenging Ext.P4, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5. The said appeal was taken up for hearing on 18.1.2011 after notice to the petitioner. The petitioner however did not appear. The appellate authority thereupon dismissed the appeal and held that the petitioner is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,27,750/- after giving credit to the like sum paid as a condition for entertaining the appeal. Hence, this writ petition challenging Ext.P6, the order passed by the appellate authority. W.P.(C) No.9997 of 2011 2 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that as the petitioner had already deposited 50% of the amount demanded, the appellate authority should have offered the petitioner another opportunity to appear and put forward his contentions. Alternatively, it is contended that even assuming that the petitioner was not present, the appellate authority ought to have considered th various contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P5 appeal and arrived at a finding on the merits. 3. I heard Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that Ext.P5 appeal which was filed on 9.10.2009 was posted for hearing only on 18.1.2011. The appeal was rejected on the short ground that though the officers of the Board were present, the appellant/the petitioner herein was not present. A reading of Ext.P5 appeal memorandum indicates that the petitioner has raised various contentions in the appeal. The appellate authority which has technical expertise has not considered any of those contentions. It is evident from the order under challenge that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the amount demanded in Ext.P3. In such circumstances, I am of the W.P.(C) No.9997 of 2011 3 opinion that the appellate authority should reconsider the appeal after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P6 order and direct the second respondent to reconsider Ext.P5 appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The appellate authority shall issue one week's clear notice to the petitioner of the date fixed for hearing. It is however clarified that if notwithstanding the service of notice, the petitioner or his authorised representative does not turn up for the hearing, it will be open to the appellate authority to dismiss the appeal for default without affording the petitioner any further opportunity of being heard. Until such time as fresh orders are passed on Ext.P5 appeal, the service connection to the petitioner shall not be disconnected for non-payment of the disputed invoice. The petitioner shall however pay the regular bills issued from time to time. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.