IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WA.No. 735 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4317/2010 Dated 16/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ SUVISH.M.S, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.M.K.SUDARSANAN, MOOKOLLA HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-26, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN WP(C )AND RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. ANCY POULOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.LATE POULOSE, PAYYAPILLY HOUSE, HOUSE NO.28/140, PARAPILLY LINE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-682 036, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, GIRINAGAR, KOCHI-20, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. ARUN PRASAD, S/O.PRASAD, RESIDING AT "PRASAD", DIWAN ROAD, KOORKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ ----------------------------------------------------------- W.A No.735 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June 2010 ORDER Abdul Rehim, J Third respondent in the writ petition is in appeal against judgment of the learned single Judge. The appellant was the tenant in the premises wherein theft of energy was detected. It is admitted that out of the penalty imposed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003, the appellant had remitted 50%. It is further evident that neither the writ petitioner, who is the land lady, nor the appellant has challenged the impugned proceedings of penalty. Consequent to default committed in payment of balance amount, coercive steps has been initiated and the electric connection was disconnected. Writ petition was filed by the land lady seeking directions to the Sub Inspector of Police to conduct investigation on the complaint preferred with respect to detection of theft of energy amounting to offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act. It is further prayed that respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition, who were the tenants, should be mulcted with liability of the offence. Learned Single Judge, referring to provisions of Section 126, observed that the appellant being the person who was in occupation of the W.A No.735 OF 2010 2 premises has got civil liability with respect to the penal consequence. It is also observed that going by the enabling provision, the criminal liability is also very much upon the appellant, who was in occupation of the premises at the time of the alleged theft. Before the learned single Judge, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, he is ready to satisfy the balance liability and sought time for payment. The learned single Judge also recorded submissions made on behalf of the Electricity Board that the appellant had appeared before the Assistant Engineer concerned and made assurance regarding payment of the outstanding liability on or before 31/03/2010. On the above basis, the learned single Judge allowed three months time for settling the liability. It also observed that the appellant can compound the offence, if so advised, by paying the required compounding fee. 2. Contention of the appellant is that, he has never undertaken the liability and considering that the land lady is a widow he has only offered to shoulder liability to the limited extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Going by the impugned judgment, it is evident that the appellant had appeared through counsel before the learned single Judge and undertaken to pay the balance amount. It is based on the above submission that the learned W.A No.735 OF 2010 3 single Judge has shown indulgence in granting three months period. In the grounds enumerated in the memorandum of appeal the above fact was not refuted. 3. Under the above circumstances we are of the opinion that if the appellant has got any grievance against the order imposing penalty, he has to resort the statutory remedy available by way of appeal as provided under Electricity Act. Further with respect to any proceedings based on police complaint, the appropriate remedy available to the appellant is not under the writ jurisdiction of this court. 4. In the result we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge. The appeal deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that the findings in the impugned judgment will not in any way prejudice the appellant in resorting to any other statutory remedies, if available to him under law. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J vdv