Kerala High Court
WP(C)/37738/2009 of S.KARTHIKEYAN Vs KSEB on 30 December 2009
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2009 / 9TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37738 of 2009(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- S.KARTHIKEYAN, S/O SUBRAMANIAN, NO.1, SENTHIL, P.SUBRAMANIAM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2009 / 9TH POUSHA 1931
WP(C).No. 37738 of 2009(J)
-----------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
S.KARTHIKEYAN, S/O SUBRAMANIAN,
NO.1, SENTHIL, P.SUBRAMANIAM NAGAR,
NIT ROAD, KILLIPALAM, KARAMANA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF
SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
SRI.V.R.REKESH
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VYDHYUDHIBHAVANAM, PATTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, KAZHAKKUTTAM,
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER(APTS),
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN ,SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
I.A.No.16381/09 is an application filed by the petitioner in the writpetition seeking correction of the writ petition as proposed.
2. Heard. Allowed.
3. Alleging unauthorised use of electrical energy, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P4 provisional bill, against which the petitioner hassubmitted Ext.P5 objections. Petitioner has filed this writ petitionapprehending that without passing final orders after considering petitionersobjections, the respondents may disconnect power supply to the petitionerfor non-payment of the penalty demanded by Ext.P4 provisional bill.
The learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board submits thatExt.P4 is only a Provisional Bill and further action would be taken onlyafter a final order is passed, considering the Ext.P5 objections of thepetitioner. This is recorded and the writ petition is closed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.
mns