The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext P2, P2(a), P7 and P7(a).
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents, keep all proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P7 and P7(a) in abeyance until the petitioner is granted an opportunity to submit an appeal before the appellate authority duly constituted as directed by this Honourable Court in Ext.P5 judgment and the said appeal is considered by the said authority after hearing the petitioner.”
This writ petition was filed without resorting to the statutory remedy by way of appeal under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, contending that no properly constituted appellate authority is in existence, as on date.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, being aggrieved of Ext.P2, the petitioner originally approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum leading to Ext.P3 order, followed by the order passed by the Ombudsman, vide Ext.P4. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is now without any remedy against Exts. P2 and P6, as the appellate authority originally constituted in terms of Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is no more there, by virtue of Ext.P5 judgment dated 07.07.2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, giving specific directions to constitute the authority as specified therein, also giving liberty to the parties concerned to approach the said authority in the manner as specified in paragraph '13' of the judgment which reads as follows:
“13. Such being the case, the appointment of the Deputy Chief Engineers now effected by G.O.(P) No. 20/2014/PD dated 28.05.2014, cannot be upheld and the Government will have to make a fresh appointment satisfying the requirements of Section 127 of the Appellate Authority Rules. Insofar as the order in R.P. the order shows that Rule 3 of the Appellate Authority Rules was noticed by this Court when this order was passed. Therefore, the order being per incuriam, cannot be relied to sustain the designation of Deputy Chief Engineers as the Appellate Authority. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
1. The Government of Kerala shall appoint the Appellate Authority as contemplated under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2. Once the Appellate Authority is so constituted, the appeals that are already filed by the writ petitioners and which are pending before the Deputy Chief Engineers, who were appointed by virtue of G.O.(P) No. 27/2012, shall be transferred to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide those appeals on merits.
3. Such of the writ petitioners who have not filed appeals against the orders of assessment under Section 126 of the Act, shall file appeals as provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act within one month of constitution of the Appellate Authority as directed above and if such appeals are filed, the same shall be dealt with on merits and disposed of accordingly.
4. Except in the case of the writ petitioners in W.P.
(C). NO. 15560 of 2013, the remittances made by the other writ petitioners in compliance of he order passed by this Court will be given credit towards the requirement of Section 127(2) of the Act and if there is any short fall in 50% required to be made good, the differential amount shall be remitted by the petitioners. Insofar as W.P.(C). No. 15560 of 2013 is concerned, his appeal will be entertained without insisting on any condition of Pre-deposit.
We clarify that we have not dealt with the merits of the contentions raised by the respective parties which are to be agitated and decided by the Appellate Authority and therefore, 14. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly ”
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for extending similar benefits to the petitioner as well.
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Board as well, who submits that, steps are being taken by the Government to notify the authority in terms of Ext.P5 verdict and it is for the Government to finalize the proceedings in this regard. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 09.10.2014, coercive proceedings were intercepted subject to satisfaction of 50% of the disputed liability within ten days, which period is still to be over.
4. In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings before the appellate authority, who will be designated by the State Government on the basis of the directions contained in the Ext.P5 judgment. Such appeal shall be filed within a period of one month from the date of notification. If any such appeal is filed before the said appellate authority, complying with the statutory prescription, and subject to the satisfaction of the condition as already imposed by this Court, the same shall be dealt with and finalized by the appellate authority in accordance with law.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the competent authority for further steps.
sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-