IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 17462 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K.J.THOMASKUTTY, S/O.JOSEPH, KANNAMTHANATHU HOUSE, KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKARA MURI, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER), A.P.T.S. HEAD QUARTERS, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, PATHANAMTHITTA ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PATHANAMTHITTA ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, VADASSERIKKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. K.SURESH, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, POOVANTHURUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM-12. BY SC SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.17462 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this court seeking to quash Exts.P10 and P17 and seeks a direction to dispose of the appeal. The further prayer is for a direction to the respondents not to disconnect the power supply pursuant to Ext.P17. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the proprietor of a granite crushing unit. The power to run the crushing unit is provided by the fourth and fifth respondents. Sixth respondent was the Assistant Executive Engineer in Vadasserikkara. The relationship between the petitioner and the sixth respondent became strained. The sixth respondent caused a raid in the premises of the petitioner. Ext.P10 is the mahazar, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is unauthorisedly providing electricity to his son's industrial unit. The respondents proceeded against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P10 mahazar and Ext.P11 order was passed imposing penalty. It is stated that the matter is pending consideration before the second respondent as directed by this court W.P.(C) 34809 of 2007. Again on 29.4.2008 another raid was conducted and the very same allegations raised in Ext.P10 mahazar are reiterated in the mahazar prepared on 29.4.2008. It is stated that the WPC. 17462/2008. 2 proceedings are taken on the basis of which respondents 4 and 5 are taking steps to disconnect power supply to the petitioner's industry. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P17 is the result of the interference by the sixth respondent. He would say that an Advocate Commissioner be appointed, who can report on the matter with the assistance of an officer of the Board, who can be nominated even by the Board, so that truth can be brought out. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board submits that the allegations against the sixth respondent are totally unfounded. He would further submit that the fifth respondent will issue provisional bill to the petitioner and the petitioner may file his objections and a decision will be taken on the same. Till such time a decision is taken, there will be no disconnection of power supply to the petitioner's industry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a decision may be directed to be taken on the appeal filed against Ext.P10 mahazar. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: WPC. 17462/2008. 3 The fifth respondent will issue a provisional bill under Section 126 of the Electricity Act in the light of Ext.P17 mahazar. Within five days of the bill being received, the petitioner will prefer his objections and the fifth respondent will consider the objections and take a decision thereon in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till such time as a decision is taken, there will be no disconnection on the basis of Ext.P17 mahazar. If an appeal is filed against Ext.P10 before the second respondent, the second respondent will consider the same and take a decision thereon within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, naturally after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb