Disposed

Ibrahim Kunju v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC15 Feb 2008WP(C)/5144/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an electricity demand order imposed for theft after a surprise inspection by a Sub Engineer, arguing the Sub Engineer lacked authority. The High Court dismissed the plea as premature pending objections to the assessment before the Assistant Engineer, directing that Authority to consider jurisdiction and statutory provisions.

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Engineer shall consider the petitioner's objections within three months and state reasons if the decision is adverse.

Ibrahim Kunju Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 5144 of 2008(K)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

IBRAHIM KUNJU, PRESIDENT EMDEES CHARITABLE TRUST HOSPITAL KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYTHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶17

BY SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, S.C.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

W.P(C) No. 5144 OF 2008

¶21

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2008

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The Sub Engineer, attached to the office of the Assistant Engineer of the Section under which the petitioner is a consumer of the electrical energy, conducted a surprise inspection and concluded that there is theft of energy. He, accordingly, drew up a mahazar which lead to the issuance of the impugned demand for payment of charges etc. The petitioner has placed his objections to the demand. He has filed this Writ Petition, notwithstanding the availability of statutory remedies, because of his contention that the Sub Engineer is not authorised to conduct the site inspection.

¶24

The learned Standing Counsel for the Board has placed before me GO(P) No.21/05/PD dt.16.07.05 issued by the Government of Kerala through the Power(A) Department as per SRO No. 703 of 2005, whereby in exercise of power under Sub Section 21 of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Government have authorised officers of and above the rank of Sub Engineer of KSEB to exercise the powers and perform the functions under Section 135. It is accordingly pointed out that the

¶25

WPC No. 5144 OF 2008

¶26

¶27

action of the Sub Engineer is in order.

¶28

Having regard to what is stated above, I do not deem it appropriate, as of now, to go into the question as to whether the Sub Engineer could have conducted the inspection, drawn up mahazar etc., particularly when the petitioner has filed his objections to the assessment before the competent authority namely, the Assistant Engineer, who is authorised to hear objection to the assessment. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶29

i. The Assistant Engineer shall consider the objections of the petitioner(Ext.P3) and take a decision thereon within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. In doing so, the Assistant Engineer will also specifically consider whether the action of the Sub Engineer is in excess of the prescribed authority and in terms of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶30

WPC No. 5144 OF 2008

¶31

¶32

ii. In rendering the decision, the Assistant Engineer

¶33

shall state his reasons if the decision is against the petitioner because the petitioner would then be entitled to seek appellate remedies before the competent appellate authority.

¶34

iii. In the meanwhile if the petitioner remits 1/3^rd of the amounts covered by the impugned demand and applies for restoration of supply, the same shall be considered on the petitioner also remitting the necessary reconnection charges.

¶35

It is clarified that if the petitioner has grievance regarding the correctness of the meter, appropriate action shall be taken to ensure resolution of this dispute in terms of the provisions of the statute.

¶36

T HOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

ttb

WPC No. 5144 OF 2008

WPC No. 5144 OF 2008

Ibrahim Kunju v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim Kunju v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulaiman Vs the K.S.E.B.

K.Baby Thomas Vs the K.S.E.B.

P.P.Rahim Haji Vs K.S.E.B

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

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

Lilly Vs the Recovery Officer and Others