IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33339 of 2006(R)
1. RAJAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,
... Respondent
2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.C.THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
Dated :15/12/2006
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN, J.
```````````````````````````
W.P.(C) NO. 33339 OF 2006
```````````````````````````
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2006
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a consumer of electricity whose premises of his
unit was inspected by the APTS and the meter was removed and
it was found that he is indulged in theft of electricity and also
tampering of the meter. Exhibit P1 is the mahazar. Subsequently
petitioner was served with Exhibit P2 letter along with Exhibits P3
and P4 bills.
2. Petitioner contended that he is entitled to reconnection
as the alleged act of removal of the meter is illegal as they have
not complied with the mandatory provisions contained in Sections
56 and 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However he has already
preferred an appeal. He prays for appropriate orders to be
passed directing the appellate authority to consider his appeal
and dispose the same in accordance with law.
3. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the
Electricity Board on the other hand would contend that what is
attracted in the present case is Section 50 of the Electricity Act
read with Regulation 25(I)(i) of the code, which clearly permit
WPC 33339/2006
: 2 :
disconnection of the supply in the factual situation. He also
submits that the appeal presented to the Assistant Executive
Engineer is not proper since he is not the appellate authority in
this connection. He also draw my attention to SRO 250/2005
issued by the Government under Section 127 of the Electricity
Act, whereby the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Electricity
concerned has been described as the appellate authority.
4. In such circumstances, after hearing both sides,
following direction is issued.
If the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Deputy Chief
Engineer of the Electrical circle concerned, within a period of two
weeks from today after remitting the full amount of Exhibit P3 and
also remits 1/3rd amount under Exhibit P4 and produce proof of
the same along with the appeal, the appellate authority will
consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
5. Even though the Deputy Chief Engineer is not made a
party to this proceedings, he is suo motu impleaded for the
purpose of issuing directions to dispose of the same as above.
WPC 33339/2006
: 3 :
6. In case the above amount is paid, the supply shall be
restored forthwith by the first respondent.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Issue carbon copy.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
Rp