IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 SA.No. 767 of 1996(G) --------------------- AS.8/1993 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY OS.98/1991 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYOLI .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------- M.T.MOOSA, VATTAKKUNIYIL, VADAKARA. BY ADV. MR.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, VADAKARA. ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN SC FOR K.S.E.B. THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ S.A.No.767 Of 1996 ---------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The plaintiff in O.S.No.98 of 1991 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Payyoli is the appellant. The suit was filed seeking a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electricity supply to the plaintiff. Pending suit, the prayer was amended and a relief for restoration of electric supply was incorporated. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has alternate remedy available under the statute. The lower appellate court confirmed the decree and judgment. Hence the appeal. Parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit. 2. Both the courts placing reliance on Section 24(2) of the Indian Electricity Act held that it should have been open to the plaintiff to challenge the validity of Ext.A4 demand notice cum disconnection notice dated 17.9.1991 before the forums available under the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The court below also held that the plaintiff has not succeeded in proving that he has not used the power connection for domestic purposes. Observing that the plaintiff should have adduced S.A.No.767 Of 1996 ::2:: evidence to prove that he used the electric supply only for agricultural purposes, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court held that the plaintiff should have approached the authorities mentioned under Section 24(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, challenging the validity of Ext.A4 notice issued to him. Both courts found that in the said circumstances the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief claimed in the plaint. This Court also, after hearing both sides, endorse the view taken by the courts below that the remedy available to the plaintiff is to approach the authorities under the Indian Electricity Act, Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and other statutes or regulations, if any, to challenge the validity of Ext.A4 notice. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to approach the statutory authorities, the decree and judgment passed by the lower appellate court stands confirmed. The observations and finding passed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court regarding the issue No.1 stands vacated. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-