IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17918 of 2008(G)
1. K.C.MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY,
... Petitioner
2. JAMEELA, W/O.MOHAMMED IBRAHIM
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
4. SUB ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.RAGHUNATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :16/06/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 17918 OF 2008 G
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
Electricity Board. By consent, the matter has been taken up for
final hearing.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
The second petitioner is residing with family with power
connection No.5306 and is regularly paying bills. Petitioner was
issued with Exts.P4 and P5 penal bills under Section 126 of the
Electricity Act for Rs.36,000/= each for unauthorised extension.
Petitioners preferred Exts.P6 and P7 objections. Petitioners
were relegated to prefer Appeals in Ext.P8 Judgment. By
Ext.P9 order, the Appeal has been disposed of. Petitioners
challenge Ext.P9. Petitioners’ complaint is that in Ext.P9 it was
found by the Appellate Authority that the provisions of Section
126 have not been complied with and yet it is found that the
WPC. 17918/08 G 2
contention that penal bills will not lie, cannot be accepted.
Thereafter, the Authority has directed to comply with the
provisions of Section 126 and disposed of the Appeal.
3. Having come to the conclusion that the provisions of
Section 126 were not complied with, sustaining of the penal bills
may not be justified. Probably what the Appellate Authority had
in mind was that the procedure has to be complied with.
Exts.P4 and P5 bills shall be treated as provisional bills issued
under Section 126 of the Act. Ext.P6 and P7 shall be treated as
objections of the petitioners against the provisional bills and
there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider and
take a decision on Exts.P6 and P7 objections in accordance with
law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioners. To enable the same, Ext.P9 will stand quashed.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk. // True Copy//
PS to Judge
WPC. 17918/08 G 3