Dismissed

Dr.Bikky Mammen Modayil v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors.

Kerala HC20 Mar 2007WP(C)/3770/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a demand notice for electricity dues. Respondent admitted non-compliance with prior court order. Court quashed demand notice without prejudice and directed restoration of power supply if disconnected due to this demand.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 demand notice quashed without prejudice. Power supply to be restored forthwith if disconnected due to said demand.

Dr.Bikky Mammen Modayil Vs Kerala State Electricity Board… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2007 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1928 WP(C).No. 3770 of 2007(W)

¶5

------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

------------------

¶8

DR.BIKKY MAMMEN MODAYIL, S/O.DR.MAMMEN THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT MODAYIL HOUSE, DEVIKULAM- 685613.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE

¶10

SRI.ROY THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

----------------------

¶13

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.

¶14

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶15

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CHITHIRAPURAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶16

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, RAJAKUMARI, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶17

BY BY ADV.SRI.JOSE J.MATHEICKAL SC., KSEB

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) NO.3770/2007

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.33/98-99 DT.31.7.98 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE BILLING ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.30.11.05. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT PASSED IN W.P.(C) NO.13638/04 DT.12.1.06.

¶24

EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.7.2.06.

¶25

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.18.1.07 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

/TRUE COPY/

¶27

tss

¶28

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

¶29

W.P.(C) NO. 3770 OF 2007-W

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P5 demand notice served on him, to recover an amount of Rs.2,13,743/-. The main ground of attack against Ext.P5 is that the said demand has been raised without considering Ext.P4 representation, in the light of Ext.P3 judgment. The learned standing counsel for the K.S.E.B submitted that the above contention of the petitioner is correct. No orders were passed as directed in Ext.P3 judgment. Without doing that Ext.P5 is issued. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondents are withdrawing Ext.P5. This submission is recorded and the writ petition is closed. If the power supply to the petitioner was disconnected for non-payment of the amount due under Ext.P5, the same shall be restored forthwith.

¶32

20^th March, 2007.

¶33

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶34

Nm/

Dr.Bikky Mammen Modayil v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Bikky Mammen Modayil v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.D.Devasia Vs Rev.Fr.Msg.Mathew M.Chalil

T.Vijayan Nair Vs Sivasankar

M/S.Sadguru Marbles Vs State of Kerala

M.M.Joseph Vs P.Sajan Mathew

Mcdowell & Co.Ltd,Cherthala Vs Asst.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Cochin Refineries Balmer Lawrie Ltd. Vs Asst. Commr. of Commercial Taxes