IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2232 of 2009(N)
1. FATHIMA @ PATHUMMA, S/O.LATE PARAMBATH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERLA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP.BY
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :21/01/2009
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WP.(C) No. 2232 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2. Exts.P1 and P2 are bills
indicating penal charges apparently alleging unauthorised additional load.
Ext.P3 is the site mahazar. Exts.P5 and P6 are stated to be regular bills.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Exts.P1 and P2 cannot be
justified, as under law, against a provisional bill the petitioner must be given
an opportunity to object to the same. This has not been done.
2. Learned Standing Counsel points out that Exts.P1 and P2
can be treated as provisional bills.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:
Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical
Section, Chokli is suo motu impleaded as additional third respondent.
The petitioner is given one week’s time from today to file
objections to Exts.P1 and P2 before the additional third respondent. There
will be a further direction to the additional third respondent to consider and
take a decision on the objections within one month from the date of receipt
of the objections. There will also be a direction that if the disconnection has
WPC.2232/2009. 2
been made based on Exts.P1 and P2, it will be restored forthwith upon
production of a copy of this judgment.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb