Chandy John v. The Kerala State Electricity Board
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/19TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WA.No.825 of 2015 () IN WP(C).9177/2015 ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9177/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24-03-2015 APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------- CHANDY JOHN, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.LATE JOHN CHANDY VATTAKUNNEL PULICKAL, MUTTAMBALAM KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 695 001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KOTTAYAM 686 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION KOTTAYAM EAST, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KOTTAYAM 686 001.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD KOTTAYAM 686 001.
5. K.K.UNNI (RETIRED CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR) KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE SAJEEVAN ROAD, PALLURUTHY 682 007.
6. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR KOTTAYAM 686 001.
R BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.
-------------------------------------- W.A.No.825 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2015
JUDGMENT
K.T.Sankaran, J.
As per the judgment impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge directed that the electricity connection shall be restored to the petitioner on conditions, one of which is that one half of the amount due under Exhibit P8 shall be deposited. The learned Single Judge directed that Exhibit P12 appeal shall be disposed of on complying with the aforesaid condition also. 2.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3.
In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that condition No.(i) can be modified by directing the petitioner to deposit ₹2 lakhs instead of half of the amount due.
W.A.No.825/2015 Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and the condition to deposit one half of the amount due under Exhibit P8 order is modified and reduced to ₹2 lakhs. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH JUDGE csl