Reghuvaran R. vs The Kerala State Electricity … on 19 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17024 of 2009(W)


1. REGHUVARAN R., AGED 54 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

3. THE ASST. ENGINEER,

4. THE SUB ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :19/06/2009

 O R D E R
                   ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
                ---------------------
                W.P.(C).No.17024 OF 2009
              ------------------------
            Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009.

                         JUDGMENT

Petitioner has a furniture unit, where he is availing

power supply, which was being charged at LT VII-B tariff.

2. There was an APTS inspection and Ext.P1 is the

mahazar. Following the findings in Ext.P1, Ext.P2 penal bill

for Rs.2,19,000/- was issued to the petitioner. Ext.P2 itself

show that the tariff applied is LT-VIII and not LT-VII-B.

Petitioner filed Ext.P4 objection and the 3rd respondent

passed Ext.P5 order reducing his liability to

Rs.1,46,000/-. He filed Ext.P6 appeal before the 2nd

respondent under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity

Act,2003.

3. Thereafter this writ petition has been filed mainly

contending that as he is incapable of complying with the

conditions requiring remittance of 50%, his appeal will not

WP(c)No.17024/09 2

be considered by the 2nd respondent on merits and this court

should consider his grievance in this writ petition.

4. In my view, once a statute has provided an appellate

remedy and the said remedy has already been invoked by the

petitioner, it is for the petitioner to pursue Ext.P6 appeal

which is pending before the 2nd respondent.

5. As regards compliance with the conditions requiring

remittance of 50% provided in Section 127 is concerned, case

is that he is incapable of complying with the said provision.

Of course, that ground by itself will not invalidate the section

or exonerate the petitioner from complying with the statutory

prescription. Irrespective of the inability raised by the

petitioner in this behalf, still a reading of Ext.P2 penal bill

shows that the petitioner has been charged under the LT VIII,

while the applicable the tariff in the case of the petitioner

was LT VII-B. If his liability was quantified applying the

applicable tariff, namely, LT VII-B, his liability would have been

lesser than what is now fixed in Ext.P5. Taking into account

WP(c)No.17024/09 3

the peculiar facts of this case, I direct that, if the petitioner

remits 1/3rd of the amount fixed in Ext.P5 along with the fee

payable for the appeal, Ext.P6 will be dealt with on merits with

notice to the petitioner.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WP(c)No.17024/09 4