IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24430 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.B.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 45, S/O.LATE MR.K.K.BEERAN, PROPRIETOR, NATIONAL GRANITES, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, EDAYAR, MUPPATHADAM (PO), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683 110. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, EDAYAR (MUPPATHADAM) ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 110. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, EDAYAR (MUPPATHADAM) ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 110. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON 26/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.24430 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ex.P5, an order passed by the 3rd respondent, overruling Ext.P2 objections raised by the petitioner against Ext.P1, a back assessment demand for the periods July 2004 to December, 2004 and June, 2005 to December, 2005. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that on more than three occasions, the case was posted by the 3rd respondent and despite notice, petitioner did not appear for hearing. It was in those circumstances, the impugned order was passed. 2. In this writ petition, although it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did appear for hearing, the pleadings in this writ petition does not show that the petitioner has appeared before the 3rd respondent as contended by the counsel during the course WP(C).NO.24430/09 2 of arguments. Therefore on examining the correctness of Ext.P5, in the light of pleadings I can not find fault with the 3rd respondent for the view that he has taken. 2. Be that as it may, having regard to the monetary liability fastened on the petitioner and the submission that he has valid contentions to urge, I feel it is only appropriate that the petitioner is given an opportunity to raise his objections in the matter. 3. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is quashed and the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 4. The petitioner shall appear before the 3rd respondent on any day between 7th and 10th September, 2009, in which event the 3rd respondent shall hear the petitioner and decide on Ext.P1, in the light of Ext.P2 objections afresh. 5. It is also directed that in case the petitioner remits 50% of the amount demanded in Ext.P1 and pays the reconnection charges, the supply which is stated to have been disconnected shall be restored forthwith. WP(C).NO.24430/09 3 Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(C).NO.24430/09 4