IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2230 of 2004()
1. M/S. THAMARAPPILLY BROTHERS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1)
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :12/07/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A.No.2230 of 2004
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 12th day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
In this writ appeal the relief sought for by the appellant is as under:
“Set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single
Judge passed in W.P.(C) No.17790 of 2004 and the
modification of the judgment passed in Contempt of Court
Case No.1169 of 2004.”
2. In so far as the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
No.17790 of 2004 is concerned, we are of the opinion that by that order the
learned Single Judge has granted substantial reliefs that was sought for by the
petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner can be aggrieved
by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition.
Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ
petition need not be interfered by us.
3. After the disposal of the writ petition, the respondent Kerala State
Electricity Board had issued yet another demand notice directing the appellant
to pay interest on the penalty amount levied by the respondent. The appellant
had questioned the said demand notice by filing an application I.A.No.10189 of
2004. The said application came to be rejected by the Court, with a direction to
the appellant to file a contempt petition, if he so desires.
4. After the disposal of the said application, the appellant has filed a
contempt petition in No.1169 of 2004. In that certain orders are made by the
learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by that order passed in the contempt petition,
the appellant is before us in this writ appeal.
W.A.No.2230/2004 2
5. If for any reason, the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed in
the contempt proceedings, he cannot maintain the present writ appeal before
us.
6. Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act reads as under:
“5. Appeal from judgment or order of Single Judge.– An
appeal shall lie to a Bench of two Judges from —
(i) a judgment or order of a Single Judge in the exercise
of original jurisdiction; or
(ii) a judgment of a Single Judge in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the
exercise of original jurisdiction by a Subordinate Court.”
7. In our view, Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act provides for filing
of the appeal under certain circumstances. The order impugned in this appeal
does not fall under the circumstances mentioned therein. Therefore, the writ
appeal requires to be rejected as not maintainable and it is accordingly
rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.T.SANKARAN)
JUDGE
vns/DK.