E K HUSSAIN Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner submits that he is running a restaurant by name 'royal Bake restaurant' at Thamarasery Chungam, with electricity consumer No. 24529. According to him, in connection with the truss work that was going on, on one occasion, electricity was made use of for welding purpose. It is stated that noticing the same, an inspection was conducted by the officials of the respondent Board resulting in Extsp2 and P2 (a) bills demanding Rs. 26,948/ -. It is stated that against Exts. P2 and P2 (a), the petitioner filed an appeal and following Ext. P3 appellate order, the demand was reduced to Rs. 17,948/-, which the petitioner paid in full. It is stated that subsequently, they were issued ext. P4, demanding an amount of Rs. 31,563/-, and at the request of the petitioner, details of Ext. P4 were also furnished as per Ext. P5. It is stated that the petitioner attempted to file an appeal against Ext. P4. But, however, the 2nd respondent did not accept the said appeal. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.

(2.) IN my view, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P4, he is entitled to challenge the same before the 2nd respondent in view of the appellate remedy that is available to him under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, if the petitioner made an attempt to file an appeal, the 2nd respondent ought to have accepted the same. Having regard to the specific case of the petitioner that his appeal was declined to be accepted, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:-That within one month from today, it will be open to the petitioner to file appeal against Ext. P4 before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner shall also make remittance of 50% of the amount covered by Ext. P4, along with appeal charges while filing the appeal. If an appeal is filed as above, the same will be entertained on merits and the grievance of the petitioner will be considered, and orders passed without any further delay in the matter.

(3.) IN order to enable the petitioner to avail of the appellate remedy without facing a disconnection, it is directed that the interim stay granted by this Court on 08/04/2009 will stand extended for a period of one month from today.