High Court Kerala High Court

Dr.K.Moosa vs The Assistant Engineer on 27 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Dr.K.Moosa vs The Assistant Engineer on 27 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21064 of 2009(C)


1. DR.K.MOOSA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(APPELLATE

3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.R.SREEJITH

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :27/07/2009

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
                 ---------------------
                 W.P.(C).No.21064 OF 2009
               ------------------------
             Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009.

                          JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a Doctor by profession running a hospital

with an X-ray unit.

2. It is stated that the hospital was inspected on

21.2.2009 and according to the respondents they found

unauthorized additional load of 33 KV. Based on that

assessment, dues from the petitioner were assessed and

Ext.P1 order was passed, confirming the liability.

3. Aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioner filed Ext.P2

appeal before the 2nd respondent, remitting 50% of the

amount demanded, in terms of Section 127 of the Electricity

Act, 2003. The appeal is pending. For the subsequent

period, based on Ext.P1 assessment, petitioner was issued

Ext.P4 bill and that was paid as per Ext.P5. Now the

petitioner has given Ext.P6 bill for the period subsequent to

WP(c).No.21064/09 2

Ext.P4, again based on Ext.P1 order and also claiming the

balance amount demanded in Ext.P1 order, 50% of which had

already remitted by the petitioner, at the time when Ext.P2

appeal was filed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that, having regard

to the pendency of Ext.P2 appeal and the remittance of 50%

that petitioner has already made, he ought to have been

billed as done, prior to Ext.P1.

5. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the petitioner is

pending. His liability to pay the amount demanded as per

Ext.P1 will depend upon the orders to be passed by the 2nd

respondent. In the meanwhile, the respondent could not have

demanded the balance amount due under Ext.P1, as has done

in Ext.P6. There is force in the submission made by the

counsel for the petitioner that, during the pendency of the

appeal the petitioner should not be made liable to pay the

entire amount, that is due under Ext.P1, for the subsequent

period also.

WP(c).No.21064/09 3

6. Taking into account the submissions made by both

sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following

directions.

7. The 2nd respondent, before whom Ext.P2 appeal filed

by the petitioner is pending, shall consider the appeal with

notice to the petitioner and pass final orders in the matter, as

expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from

the date of production of a copy of the judgment. In the

meanwhile, until orders are passed on Ext.P2 appeal, the

petitioner shall pay towards the bills an amount of

Rs.25,000/- on a provisional basis and the payment of

balance amount will depend upon the outcome of the appeal.

It is also made clear that the payment made by the petitioner

as per Ext.P5, will also subject to the outcome of the appeal.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WP(c).No.21064/09 4