The issue involved in both these cases is similar and petitioner is the same. Pursuant to an inspection, the respondents detected unauthorised use of electricity as stated in Ext.P2 mahazar dated 02.05.2011. The petitioner contends that, without passing any provisional assessment and without giving an opportunity to submit objections, the proceedings were finalised by the 3rd respondent, issuing Ext.P3 invoice dated 20.05.2011, whereby the petitioner was required to satisfy a sum of `2,28,465/-, which is allegedly illegal in all respects. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that, by virtue of the course followed by the concerned respondent, the petitioner has virtually lost the opportunity to file an appeal, as envisaged under Section 127 of the ElectricityAct, and hence this writ petition.
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 21.06.2011, the following interim order was passed:
“Admit. Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned standing counsel, takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Issue urgent notice returnable in ten days to the 4th respondent.
There will be an interim order staying disconnection of the electricity supply for non-payment of the amount demanded in Ext.P3 bill and recovery pursuant to the said bill in the event of the petitioner depositing 1/3rd of the amount demanded therein within two weeks from today.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the condition has already been satisfied by effecting 1/3rd of the due amount. Case of the petitioner in the subsequent writ petition (WP(C) No.26988 of 2014) is that, the petitioner was staying away and the premises concerned were given on rent. However, in view of the course and proceedings the petitioner wants to regularise the connected load and it is accordingly, that the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 application on 26.09.2014 before the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the concerned respondent has refused to accept the said application. The liability of the petitioner to clear the amount covered by Ext.P1 dated 20.05.2011 in fact stands stayed by this Court, as per Ext.P2 interim order dated 21.06.2011. The amount ordered to be satisfied by this Court while imposing the condition, is cleared as borne by Ext.P3 dated 05.07.2011. Pendency of the writ petition could not have been a bar for considering the application preferred by the petitioner for regularistion, submits the learned counsel.
well.
4. Heard the standing counsel appearing for the Board as
5. After hearing both the sides and going through the materials on record, this Court finds that pursuant to Ext.P2 mahazar dated 02.05.2011,, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 provisional order / demand requiring the petitioner to satisfy a sum of `79,019/- on the very same day. Admittedly, the petitioner did not submit any objection and it was in the said circumstances, that the proceedings were finalised by the concerned respondent by issuing Ext.P3 demanding a sum of `2,28.465/-
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner wants to have the connected load regularised, at the earliest, and that the petitioner is ready to satisfy the amount covered by Ext.P3 under protest.
7. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is required to satisfy the balance amount covered by Ext.P3 forthwith, at any rate within one month, upon which Ext.P6 application preferred by the petitioner in WP(C) No.26988 of 2014, shall be considered for regularisation of the connected load and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. It shall be done without any delay, at any rate, within one month thereafter.
8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the statutory authority constituted by the Government for considering the appeals under Section 127 of the Electricity Act was the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Board. By virtue of law declared by a Division Bench of this Court with reference to the relevant Rule, it has been clarified that, the appellate authority should be a person who is not connected with the affairs of the Board/licensee. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, with reference to the judgment dated 07.07.2014 in WP(C) No.11906/09, that the State Government has reconstituted the appellate authority as per Gazette notification dated 15.10.2014.
9. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is set at liberty to dispute correctness of Ext.P3 final bill by filing a statutory appeal before the competent authority which shall be done within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such extent, the appeal shall be finalised by the competent authority, passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' thereafter.
Both the matters are disposed of accordingly.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn