Disposed

Shoukathali P.A. v. the K.S.E.B.

Kerala HC20 Feb 2008WP(C)/5957/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition regarding an electricity bill was disposed of without hearing. The petitioner must deposit half the disputed bill amount within one week and the remaining half within three weeks to prevent disconnection pending disposal of specific petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit one half of the disputed bill amount within one week and the remaining half within three weeks to avoid disconnection.

Shoukathali P.A. Vs the K.S.E.B. — Kerala HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 5957 of 2008(H)

PETITIONER:

SHOUKATHALI.P.A., S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 49 YEARS, `KAIRALI', THOTTAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶15

ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

W.P(C) No. 5957 OF 2008

¶21

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2008

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Ext.P1 is a bill issued working out the average consumption

¶24

for the previous six months. The fact that it reflects the average as also the question whether the consumption in January 2008, could be 8,800 even by taking the average, are matters that have to gain attention on proper objections of the petitioner. Being a regular bill it does not appear to be proper to issue any order against insistence of payment of any portion of the amount covered by Ext.P1. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing that Exts.P2 and P3 shall be taken up by the competent among the respondents and dispose of, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Let that be done untrammelled by anything stated herein and before issuing any further bills. In the interregnum, to avoid disconnection on the basis of Ext.P1, the petitioner will deposit one half of the amounts

¶25

covered by Ext.P1 within one week from now and remaining half within a period of three weeks.

¶26

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

ttb

RC No. 8 OF 1999

RC No. 8 OF 1999

Shoukathali P.A. v. the K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoukathali P.A. v. the K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Bhasurangan Vs Registrar of Co-Op. Societies & Others

T.Mangala Bai Vs State of Kerala

Udayamma Manoharan Vs State of Kerala

Jaya Baby Vs the Federal Bank

M.Pushpangadan Vs State of Kerala

P.J.Davis Vs State of Kerala