Partly allowed

M/S.Jayasankars Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S.E.B.

Kerala HC5 Oct 2010WP(C)/4872/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition challenged the demand of minimum charges by the Kerala State Electricity Board during the petitioner's factory closure. The High Court directed the Special Officer (Revenue) to consider and pass orders on the waiver application within one month, relying on the Accounts Officer's recommendation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Special Officer to consider and pass orders on the waiver application within one month; interim order continued.

M/S.Jayasankars Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 4872 of 2005(E) ---------------------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER(S):

¶5

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

¶6

M/S. JAYASANKAR STEEL PVT.LTD., NEAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER, SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN.

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ALUVA TOWN.

¶14

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

WPC.NO.4872/2005 E

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1:	COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF AGREEMENT DTD. 18/06/02.
P2:	BILL FOR THE MONTH OF 12/04.
P3:	INVOICE FOR THE MONTH OF 8/04.
P4:	REPRESENTATION DTD. 17/01/05 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P5:	LETTER DTD. 1/02/05 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
P6:	LETTER DTD. 5/02/2005 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
P7:	COPY OF THE DISCONNECTION NOTICE DTD. 25/01/05.
RES	PONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

S. Siri Jagan, J.

W.P(C) No. 4872 of 2005

¶26

Dated this, the 5^th day of October, 2010.

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner is a High Tension consumer of electricity with the authorised load of 350 KVA. During the month of December, 2004, the factory was closed for repairs and annual maintenance. Ext. P1 is the minimum guarantee agreement, which contained clause 14(b) which permits waiver of minimum demand in case of satisfaction of creditors mentioned therein which, according to the petitioner, includes closure on account break down of machinery. The petitioner submitted Ext. P4 claim for waiver of minimum demand for the month of December, 2004. According to the petitioner, by Ext. P5, the 3^rd respondent called for a report from the 4^th respondent in respect thereof. By Ext. P6, the Accounts Officer recommended that the invoice for the month of December 2004 is to be revised as per rules taking note of the fact that the Company was not working due to annual maintenance work during the period in question. Despite the same, Ext. P7 further demand was issued demanding arrears of current charges. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶29

“i. To call for the records connected with the case leading to Exts.P 2 and P7 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶30

ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled for reduction in MD charges in the light of Clause 14(b) of the HT agreement for the month of 12/22004.

¶31

iii. To direct the 3^rd respondent not to demand continued penalty on the allegation of unauthorized additional load, while issuing the monthly bills.

¶32

iv. To direct the 3^rd t to consider and pass orders on Ext. P4 expeditiously, keeping in abeyance Exts.P.2 and P7.”

¶33

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Ext. P6

¶34

W.P.C. No. 4872/05 -: 2 :-

¶35

recommendation of he Accounts Officer, the 3^rd respondent is bound to consider Ext. P4 application for waiver of minimum demand charges for the month of December, 2004 in the light of Ext. P6. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to that effect.

¶36

I have heard the standing counsel for the Electricity Board also.

¶37

Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P4 taking into account Ext. P6 recommendation of the Accounts Officer and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed, the interim order passed on 10.2.2005 in this writ petition would continued to be in force.

¶38

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶39

Tds/

M/S.Jayasankars Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Jayasankars Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S.E.B.

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

M.K.Sukumaran Vs K.S.E.B.

Radhakrishnan Vs Parali Grama Panchayat

K.K.Pratapan Vs K.S.E.B.

C.Chandran Vs Sanjay Koul

Binoy Joseph Vs State of Kerala

T.Sathyanesan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board