IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10 of 2011(A) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALANGADAN KUNJAVARU, S/O.ALASANKUTTY HAJI, PARAPPUR AMSOM, POST PARAPPUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, KOTTACKAL. 3. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, KOTTACKAL. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) TIRURANGADI TALUK, POST TIRURANGADI. BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDDIN, SC FOR KSEB BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. He had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.22518 of 2009 in this Court challenging Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the second respondent, rejecting the appeals filed by him against Exts.P2 and P3 memos demanding payment of various amounts towards energy charges. By Ext.P8 judgment delivered on 7.8.2009, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner has filed W.A.No.593 of 2010 canvassing the correctness of Ext.P8 judgment and the said writ appeal is pending. In the meanwhile, fifth respondent issued Exts.P9 and P10 demand notices under sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act demanding payment of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 and P3. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Exts.P9 and P10 demand notices mainly on the ground that in view of the pendency of W.A.No.593 of 2010, the demand notices ought not have been issued. 2. By Exts.P9 and P10 respondents are only seeking to recover the amounts covered by Exts.P6 and P7 orders. The challenge to the said orders was repelled by a learned single Judge of this Court by Ext.P8 judgment. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot challenge Exts.P9 and P10 demand notices. The W.P.(C) No.10 of 2011 : 2 : remedy of the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the demand made during the pendency of the writ appeal is to move an appropriate application in the writ appeal seeking stay of recovery of the amounts covered by Exts.P6 and P7 orders. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move an appropriate application for stay in W.A.No.593 of 2010 which is stated to be pending in this Court. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.