Dismissed
Secretary,,K.S.E.B, v. Sholly Jose
Kerala HCRP/994/2006
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2007 / 14TH ASHADHA 1929
RP.No. 994 of 2006(L) ------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.5995/2000 DATED 18/01/2006) ....................
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------------
1. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, ANGAMALY.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PERUMBAVOOR.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
----------------------------------------
SHOLLY JOSE, JOSE JEWELLERY, ANGAMALY.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.M.SHERIFF.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
R.P. No. 994 OF 2006 in O.P. No. 5995 OF 200O
---------------------------------------------Dated this the 5th day of July, 2007.
O R D E R
This is a petition to review the judgment dated 18.01.2006 in O.P.No.5995/00. The issue pertains to the steps taken by the review petitioners for realising proportionate energy charges on account of the alleged unauthorised load. Following the Division Bench judgment in W.A. 1231/03, this Court held that there shall not be penalty by way of proportionate energy charges and that the penalty should be limited to the fixed charges.
R.P. No. 994/06
2
yet another issue, though Sri. Karunakaran contended that it is not the energy charges that is levied, but the penalty. If as a matter of fact it is the penalty that is levied, there is no purpose in using the expression 'proportionate energy charges'. Once the expression used is 'proportionate energy charges', that would only indicate the quantum of energy that could have been consumed by such installation using the said additional load, which is against the spirit of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, since irrespective of the connected load, the energy consumed has already been properly measured and billed. In fact the Board itself in the case of commercial consumers has admitted and applied the above principle, as noted in the writ appeal judgment. In that view of the matter, there is nothing on merits to review the judgment. The review petition is hence dismissed.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
smp
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
SHOLLY JOSE
KURIAN JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court