When a statute provides a specific remedy, courts will typically not intervene through writ petitions, reinforcing the importance of statutory compliance.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein in both these cases is the proprietor of M/s.

Akkavila K.Lekshmanan & Co. He is a High Tension consumer with the Kerala State Electricity Board and he has been using the electricity connection for running a M-sand unit. On 30.9.2019, an inspection was conducted by the Anti-Theft Power Squad in his premises and unauthorised additional load was detected. Ext.P1 provisional assessment orders were passed under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and he was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 34,97,238/- in respect of one violation and Rs. 25,00,581/- in respect of the other. An objection was preferred by the petitioner to the provisional assessment order and after hearing him and after considering his objections, Ext.P2 final orders of assessment was passed confirming the provisional assessment order. Instead of preferring an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P2 final assessment orders and/or for a direction to the 3rd respondent to accept the appeal preferred by him without insisting for the deposit of 50 % of the fixed charges payable as mandated under Section 127 of the Electricity Act.

2. Heard Sri.Johnson Gomez, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board.

3. The learned Standing Counsel has raised the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition in view of the alternate remedy available to the petitioner under the Electricity Act, 2003. Any person aggrieved by a final order under Section 126 is entitled to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Act. It is by now settled that this Court will not entertain a Writ Petition if an effective alternative remedy is available to an aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of, itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Of course, the authority of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to exercise judicial review remain unaffected in cases wherein the order was passed without jurisdiction or when the authority has usurped jurisdiction without any legal foundation. However, such intrusions are not made out in the instant case. I am of the view that when the law creates a statutory forum for redressal of grievance, it would not be proper for this Court to entertain a writ petition ignoring the statutory dispensation.

4. At this stage, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had raised a contention before the assessing authority that assessment under Section 126 (6) of the Act can only be equal to twice the fixed charges payable and such consumer cannot be saddled with the liability to pay twice the energy charges applicable for the relevant category of services relying on a decision of this Court inSulabha Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram and others1. However, I find from Ext.P2 order that the assessing authority has concluded that if additional load as detected is added to the system, the voltage regulation of the feeder will go beyond the permissible limit for the HT feeder. The assessing officer has concluded that this would require the upgradation of the existing line to connect the additional load to the HT feeder without affecting the system. In that view of the matter, the principles laid down in Sulabha (supra) may not come to the rescue of the petitioner.

5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested that necessary directions be issued to the appellate authority to take the matter back on file so as to enable the petitioner to contest the matter on its merits. He points out that the final assessment order is dated 2.11.2019. As per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, appeal had to be preferred within a period of 30 days. The petitioner has preferred this

1 [ 2017 (3) KHC 563 ]

Writ Petition on 25.11.2019 and