Dismissed

M/S.South Malabar Trading Company v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC18 Feb 2008WP(C)/371/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition regarding penalty amounts and refusal of additional load, remitting the disputes to the Chief Engineer (Commercial and Tariff) with a directive to conclude proceedings within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the Chief Engineer (Commercial and Tariff) for resolution of disputes.

M/S.South Malabar Trading Company Vs the Kerala State… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 371 of 2008(T) ------------------------

¶3

PETITIONER: ------------M/S.SOUTH MALABAR TRADING COMPANY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 70 YEARS, DIANA TOWERS, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD.

¶4

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶5

RESPONDENTS:

¶6

¶7

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL AND TARIFF),K.S.E.BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD.

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ALATHUR.

¶11

THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, VADAKKANCHERRY.

¶12

R1 TO R5 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO.1680 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶15

W.P(C) Nos. 1680 & 371 OF 2008

¶16

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2008

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

After different rounds of litigation between the parties, Ext.P8 order has been issued by the Chief Engineer(Commercial and Tariff) stating that the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty imposed for the period from 9/04 to 22.8.07, i.e., till the date of realisation of unauthorised additional load. The Special Officer (Revenue) was accordingly directed to issue revised demand cum disconnection notice covering that period as per rules. Comparing Ext.P4 and the impugned Ext.P16, the petitioner contends that the amounts determined by the Special Officer(Revenue) in Ext.P16 is in excess of what could be demanded under Ext.P8. This is an issue that could be raised before the authority which issued Ext.P8. It is not for this Court to sit on accounting and entire adjudication to calculate actual amounts due in terms of Ext.P8.

¶19

On the strength of the alleged non-payment, the application of the petitioner for additional load is refused. WP(C) No.371 of 2008 is hence filed. That application would call for

¶20

WPC Nos. 1680 & 371 OF 2008

¶21

¶22

consideration immediately on the resolution of the dispute as to whether the amounts claimed under Ext.P16 is proper.

¶23

Apart from all the above, in the statement filed on behalf of the respondents in WP(C) 1680 of 2008, the Board admits the fact that certain security deposit is available with the Board. However, there is controversy between the parties as to how and with effect from which date the security deposit has to be adjusted. This is also a matter which can be directly taken before the Chief Engineer(Commercial and Tariff). Ext.P17 in WP(C) No.1680 of 2008 is also a demand, about which also, the petitioner complains.

¶24

In the aforesaid circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of relegating the petitioner to the Chief Engineer (Commercial and Tariff) for resolution of the dispute regarding the correctness of the amounts claimed, following Ext.P8 and also whether the rejection of its application for additional load is proper. The correctness or otherwise of Ext.P17 bill shall also be

¶25

WPC Nos. 1680 & 371 OF 2008

¶26

¶27

considered by the Chief Engineer. Since the petitioner has applied for additional load, it is appropriate that the Chief Engineer concludes the proceedings following this judgment within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All other questions are left open.

¶28

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶29

ttb

¶30

WPC Nos. 1680 & 371 OF 2008

¶31

M/S.South Malabar Trading Company v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.South Malabar Trading Company v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samsu T.B. Vs the Cherthala Co-Operative Agricultural

Ibrahim Kunju Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

C.P.Antony Vs Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies

P.Chandrika Devi Vs Ezhupunna Grama Panchayath, Cherthala

George Mathai Vs the Thodupuzha Primary Co-Op.

K.C.Thomas Vs Pala Urban C0-OPERATIVE Bank Ltd.