Dismissed

Pallipurath Musthafa Moosa v. K.S.E.B by Its Secretary

Kerala HC18 Nov 2010WA/1923/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal seeking restoration of electricity connection on payment of 50% of a provisionally assessed theft amount. The Court held that restoration requires full payment of the assessed amount. The appeal was dismissed subject to finalization of proceedings within one week.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed. No restoration of connection or direction to pay 50% was granted. Proceedings to be finalized within one week.

Pallipurath Musthafa Moosa Vs K.S.E.B by Its Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

WA.No. 1923 of 2010()

¶6

-------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31286/2010 DATED 21/10/2010 ....................

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

PALLIPURATH MUSTHAFA MOOSA, FOUSIYAS, THANA P.O., KANNUR-1, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.C.THAHA, DHAR-UL-FATH, KANNOTHUMCHAL, KANNUR-6.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶15

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION CENTRAL, KOZHIKODE-32.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB.

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

**K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.No.1923 of 2010

¶20

Dated this the 18^th day of November 2010

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

K.M.JOSEPH,J

¶23

The appellant is a writ petitioner. He approached this Court seeking the following prayers.

¶24

i) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P2 penal invoice and quash the same.

¶25

ii) A direction to the 3^rd respondent to furnish the site mahazer and detailed calculation statement to the petitioner forthwith so as to enable him to file a detailed objection to the Ext.P2 penal bill within the time stipulated in section 126(3) of the Electricity Act 2003.

¶26

iii) A direction to the 3^rd respondent to issue final assessment bill to the petitioner after considering the detailed objection to be filed by the petitioner so as to enable him to file appeal before the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

iv) To grant cost.

¶28

The learned Single Judge has permitted the petitioner to file detailed objection supplement to the objection which he

¶29

¶30

W.A.No.1923 of 2010

¶31

has already submitted and directed the 3^rd respondent therein to consider the same.

¶32

We have heard Adv.Sri.Ramesh Chander, the learned counsel for the appellant and Adv.Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that this is a case where the appellant disputes that there is theft and the matter is only provisionally assessed and is pending finalisation. The only request made by him is that, in the meantime, restoration of connection may be ordered on payment of 50% of the provisionally assessed amount.

¶33

On the contrary, the learned Standing Counsel submits that it is a clear case of theft and the law mandates for restoration only upon payment of the assessed amount. No doubt, at present there is a provisional assessment only. If the consumer wants to get the connection restored, it is open to him to pay off the entire amount and get the connection restored. He would further submit that the proceedings would be finalised within a period of one week from today.

¶34

¶35

W.A.No.1923 of 2010

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not think that the appellant has made out a case for restoration of connection only on payment of 50% of the amount assessed. Payment of 50% is mandated as a condition for preferring an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. But here, what the appellant seeks is an order directing restoration of connection in a case where it is found by the authorities that theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act has been committed. In sitting in appeal over the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we do not think that the judgment under attack is so erroneous as to warrant interference. However, we record the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the proceedings will be finalised within a period of one week from today and subject to the same, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶37

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶38

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

¶39

jsr

¶40

// True Copy// PA to Judge

¶41

W.A.No.1923 of 2010 4

¶42

W.A.No.1923 of 2010 5

¶43

¶44

W.A.No.1923 of 2010

¶45

K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

¶46

.No. of 200

¶47

ORDER/JUDGMENT

¶48

30/082010

Pallipurath Musthafa Moosa v. K.S.E.B by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pallipurath Musthafa Moosa v. K.S.E.B by Its Secretary

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

Preethi Jojo Vs Sub Inspector and Others

Dr.Khevna Ravisankar Pujari Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Vijayalakshmi Vs Superintendent of Police,Malappuram

State of Kerala Vs Poyili Leela

Subhashini.J. Vs District Superintendent of Police

Shyamala Vs State of Kerala