Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Kerala
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

R.P.Musthafa Sulaikha'S P.O.Pappinissery

High Court Of Kerala|27 May, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Ext.P3 is a provisional order of assessment issued by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner, under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. Ext.P3(a) is the demand accompanying the provisional order. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 objection against the provisional assessment. But Ext.P5 demand notice was issued styling the same as final bill under Section 126. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent had failed in considering the objections and in passing the final order enumerating any reasons for discarding those objections. However, aggrieved by the final bill the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent in appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003. Evidently the petitioner had remitted 50% of the amount demanded under Ext.P5 in order to satisfy the precondition contemplated under Section 127. But the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P9 order directing remittance W.P.(C). No. 10012 of 2014 -2-
of the balance amount in five equal monthly installments stating that the petitioner had requested for making payment of the amount in installments.
3. The 2nd respondent is the statutory authority conferred with power to deal with the appeal under Section 127. Once the appeal is filed after satisfying payment of 50% as the precondition, the said authority has to deal with the appeal on merits. The petitioner affirms that he had never made any request for permitting installment facility, before the 2nd respondent. If the consumer is insisted upon for payment of the entire amount assessed, pending disposal of the appeal, the cause agitated will become infructuous and the purpose of the appeal will be defeated. Therefore it is only just and proper to refrain collection of the balance amount till the disposal of the appeal. Considering the fact that the petitioner had invoked the appellate remedy, it is only just and proper to direct the 2nd respondent to deal with the appeal on merits and to dispose of the same.
4. Hence this writ petition is disposed of by W.P.(C). No. 10012 of 2014 -3-
directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 appeal and to dispose of the same on merits, after affording opportunity of personal hearing of the petitioner. The appeal shall be disposed of at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. Till such time the appeal is disposed of as directed above, collection and recovery of the balance amount covered under Ext.P5 demand, shall be kept in abeyance.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pn
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

R.P.Musthafa Sulaikha'S P.O.Pappinissery

Court

High Court Of Kerala

JudgmentDate
27 May, 2014
Judges
  • C K Abdul Rehim
Advocates
  • Sri
  • P M Pareeth