Kerala High Court
WP(C)/37612/2008 of N.A.MUHAMMEDKUNHI Vs THE ASST. ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. AND OTHERS on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37612 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.A.MUHAMMEDKUNHI BANGARAKUNNU, NELLIKKUNNU,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 37612 of 2008(C)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
N.A.MUHAMMEDKUNHI
BANGARAKUNNU, NELLIKKUNNU,KASARAGOD.
BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.M.V.BIPIN
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. THE ASSISTNAT ENGINEER
K.S.E.B ELECTRICAL SECTION, NELLIKUNNU,KASARAGOD.
2. THE CONSUMER GREIEVANCE REDRESSAL
FORUM, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRPERSON.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KASARAGOD.
4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY SC SRI. P.P. THAJUDDIN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
-----------------------
W.P.(C).No. 37612 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 26[th] day of December, 2008.
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
Petitioner submits that he is availing of power supply,for agricultural purposes and has been assigned consumerNo.5464. It is stated that, he was issued Ext.P1, enclosingExt.P1(a) demanding payment of Rs.25,859/- on theallegation that, supply of power for agricultural purposeswas being diverted for domestic purposes. Although thepetitioner has filed Ext.P2 objection, Ext.P1 was confirmedby Ext.P4 proceedings. There upon the petitioner has filedExt.P5 before the second respondent. In the meanwhile,payment was insisted and there was a threat ofdisconnection also and that led the petitioner to file thiswrit petition.
2. Standing Counsel on instructions pointed out thatthe second respondent is not the authority to deal with amatter of this nature and that it is open to the petitioner WP(c).No.37612/2008
to approach the 3[rd] respondent. Now that the respondentshave taken an objection about the maintainability of Ext.P5filed before the 2[nd] respondent and as according to themthe 3[rd] respondent is the appropriate authority, I direct thatit will be open to the petitioner to approach the 3[rd]respondent within 2 weeks from today. It is directed that ifan appeal filed under Section 127 of the Electricity Act2003 is so received by the 3[rd] respondent and if theconditions prescribed for maintaining the same aresatisfied by the petitioner, the appeal will be entertainedand a decision on merits will be rendered.
3. I also direct that in order to enable the petitioner tomove the 3[rd] respondent as above, further proceedingspursuant to Exts.P1,P1(a) and P4 will be kept in abeyancefor 3 weeks from today.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
vi
(ANTONY DOMINIC)JUDGE
WP(c).No.37612/2008vi/