IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 674 of 2008()
1. M/S.ALUVA TECHNO RUBBERS (P) LTD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER REVENUE,
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :22/05/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & M.C.HARI RANI, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No.674 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
The interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).
No.24397 of 2007 dated 12th February, 2008 is the subject matter of this writ
appeal.
2. Petitioner is an industry. The respondent Board has issued a
demand notice inter alia directing the petitioner to pay up the arrears of
electricity charges. The demand so made is to the tune of Rs.85 lakhs.
According to the petitioner/appellant, he has already paid a sum of Rs.53 lakhs
towards the demand made by the respondent Board, and therefore, there was
no justification for the learned Single Judge to have directed him to pay the
balance amount of Rs.31 lakhs in monthly instalments.
3.Sri.P. Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
would submit that without there being an application by the Board either for
modification or for vacating the interim order, the learned Single Judge was not
justified in modifying the earlier order passed.
4. Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned counsel appears for the respondents
and justifies the impugned order.
5. The subject matter of the writ appeal is an interim order passed by
the learned Single Judge. The appellate court will entertain an appeal filed
W.A.No.674 of 2008
2
against an interim order if the interim order so passed is either arbitrary,
perverse or capricious or contrary to the precedents laid down by the Apex
Court.
6. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has directed the
petitioner to pay up the amounts as demanded by the respondent Board subject
to the result of the writ petition. If for any reason he succeeds in the writ
petition, he would be entitled for refund of the amount paid by him during the
pendency of the writ petition.
7. In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain this writ appeal.
Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. The
appellant is granted time to comply with the orders and directions issued by the
learned Single Judge commencing from 1st of July, 2008.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(M.C.HARI RANI)
JUDGE
vns/dk