The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i. To issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibit P4 & Exhibit P4(a), and to quash the same before resorting to remedy of appeal provided under Section 127 of the Act.
ii. To declare that Exhibit P4 & Exhibit P4(a) are illegal and passed in violation of the provisions contained in Section 126(6) of the Indian Electricity Act and Sections 153 and 154 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent Assistant Engineer to pass fresh orders finalising penalty taking the provisions contained in the Section 126(6) of the Indian Electricity Act and Sections 153 and 154 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 and also the dictum laid down by this Honourable Court in similar matters.
iv. To issue such other writs, orders or directions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to issue on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
v. To grant the costs of these proceedings to the petitioner.”
2. When the matter came up for consideration on 21.10.2014, the following interim order was passed:
“The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board seeks for time to get instructions.
Post after ten days.
File a statement as to the factual particulars. No W.P.(C) No.27340 of 2014 2 disconnection and 'Status quo' shall be maintained till the next date of posting, on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rupees Five lakhs on or before 30.10.2014.”
It is brought to the notice of this Court that, the condition imposed by this Court has been complied with by the petitioner by effecting a deposit of of Rupees 'Five lakhs' on 28.10.2014. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, the respondents are not justified in computing the figures on the daily rate basis for fixing the penalty and that the issue stands covered by the judgment rendered in J.D.T. Islam Orphanage Committee V. Assistant
Engineer, KSEB [2007 (3) KLT 388]. Reliance is also placed on the judgment by another learned Judge on 29.10.2013 in WP
(C) No.23547 of 2013.
3. With regard to some of the prayers raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel points out that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner is not correct as such, and that there is a factual difference in the case involved. It is however conceded that, in view of the law W.P.(C) No.27340 of 2014 3 declared in the decisions cited supra, the final figure as mentioned in Ext.P4 is liable to be varied. In the said circumstance, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the concerned respondent, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 2nd respondent, for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp