IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22746 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ VARGHESE MATHEW, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOTEL AMRUTHU, THOPPUMPADY. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MATTANCHERRY, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, THOPPUMPADY SECTION, ERNAKULAM. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22746 OF 2009 (K) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a tenant, having an FL-3 licence, with Consumer No.14682-0 of Thoppumpady Electrical Section. The owner of the premises Sri.Claudy Fernandez expired in 2003. Subsequently, on 9/10/2006, his wife applied for additional allocation of power producing Exts.P2 and P3. However, as the landlord has expired, proceedings for the devolution of the property on to the legal heirs is yet to be completed, and even according to the petitioner, mutation proceedings is still pending before the revenue authorities. Petitioner states that in the meanwhile by Exts.P5 to P7, an amount of RS.4,41,549/- has been demanded towards penalty for the period August 2007 to May 2008. It is challenging this demand, the writ petition is filed. 2. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondents, who contends that against Exts.P5 to P7, it is open to the petitioner to file an appeal as contemplated under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act. 3. Having regard to the fact that an alternate remedy of WPC 22746/09 :2 : appeal is available to the petitioner, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. (1) It is directed that if the petitioner, being the tenant, files an appeal against Exts.P5 to P7, although the consumer shown therein is the deceased landlord, the appeal will be entertained by the Deputy Chief Engineer. (2) It is directed that subject to the petitioner filing an appeal within two weeks from today, coercive action pursuant to Exts.P5 to P7 will not be initiated. (3) Needless to say that while filing the appeal as above, petitioner shall comply with the conditions that are statutorily imposed for maintaining the appeal. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp