IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15029 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THE VICAR, ST.MARY'S JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. 2. T.N.KURIAN, THANDEL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, THADIYAMPADU.P.O., IDUKKI. BY ADV. MR.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, K.S.E.BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD (APTS) CENTRAL REGION, ALUVA. 3. ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION K.S.E.BOARD, PANAVu, IDUKKI COLONY.P.O. BY MR. P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 15029 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent/appellate authority in Ext.P3 appeal preferred by the petitioners challenging Ext.P2 bill. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings pursued by the departmental authorities fixing huge liability upon the petitioner in respect of the electricity charges was without any rhyme or reason and accordingly, the same was sought to be challenged by availing the statutory remedy by way of appeal. 3. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed by the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner did not choose to appear before the said authority on 17.04.2010, which according to the petitioner is per se wrong and illegal, as no such hearing was held by the 2nd respondent with proper notice to the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that absolutely no notice whatsoever was given for the hearing scheduled on 17.04.2010 and hence the petitioner did not get any effective opportunity to present the case; whereas the 2nd respondent/appellate authority has passed final orders on the appeal mainly on the basis of the alleged materials on record and merely on the version of the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Pynavu, who is the 3rd respondent. 2 WP(C) No. 15029/2010 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits on instructions that, in connection with the hearing scheduled on 17.04.2010, a notice in writing dated 07.04.2010 was sent to the petitioner by ordinary post and that the 3rd respondent had informed the position in person to the petitioner; correctness of which is strongly rebutted from the part of the petitioner, stating that it is only an after thought to mould the case of the respondents. Obviously Ext.P4 order impugned in this Writ Petition does not refer to any such notice dated 07.04.2010, whether be issued under the ordinary post or otherwise. So also, absolutely no reference is made in the said order as to the issuance of notice or discussion as to the information given by the 3rd respondent in person to the petitioner, as to the hearing scheduled on 17.04.2010. 5. There is no material on the part of the Board to sustain their stand. This being the position, this Court does not require any second thought to hold that Ext.P4 is per se wrong and illegal. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This shall be done after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc