Allowed

M/S.Milma v. K.S.E.B.& Others

Kerala HC18 Mar 2010WP(C)/6842/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the KSEB's refusal to grant additional power allocation on the condition of clearing disputed arrears. The Court set aside the rejection order, observing that the arrears dispute was ongoing under a prior court direction and that the alleged power scarcity was not reflected in the rejection letter.

What did the court decide?

The rejection order (Ext. P9) is set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the application (Ext. P8) on merits without insisting on clearing alleged arrears as a pre-condition within one month

M/S.Milma Vs K.S.E.B.& Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 6842 of 2010(E)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

M/S.MILMA, MILK PROCESSING PLANT, KOZHIKODE, PERINGOLAM, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE673 571, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

RESPONDENTS:

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

¶15

SPECIAL OFFICER(REVENUE), KSEB,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,

¶16

PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

¶18

KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, K0ZHIKODE.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶22

W.P.(C) No . 6842 OF 2010

¶23

Dated this the 18^th March, 2010

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The petitioner has approaoched this Court with the

¶26

following prayers:

¶27

“i. To call for the records connected with the case leading to Ext.P9 and quash the same to the extent it demands the petitioner to clear the alleged arrears by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶28

ii. to direct the 3^rd respondent to forthwith grant additional power allocation of 100 KVA in lieu of Ext.P8 application without insisting for the alleged arrears made mentioned in Ext.P9.

¶29

iii. To direct the 3^rd respondent to refund or adjust the amount collected by way of penalty exceeding the contract demand of 400KVA in monthly bills with effect from one month from the date of application for additional power allocation i.e. 16.08.2008 with interest.

¶30

iv. To direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for illegally denying the additional load w.e.f. 16.09.2008 as per Section 43 (3) of the Electricity Act

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No . 6842 OF 2010

¶33

2003.

¶34

v. To award cost of these proceedings. vi. To grant such other reliefs that may be deemded just and proper by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶35

Despite the opportunity given twice to the respondents no statement has been filed so far. The learned Clounsel for the petitioner submits that the application for enhanced power allocation as sought for vide Ext. P8 has been turned down by the Board as per Ext.P9 stating that the petitioner has to satisfy the arrears to the tune of Rs.28,29,565/- so as to consider the application favourably. The case of the petitioner is that there is absoluely no justification in demanding the said amount in so far as there is a positive direcrion given by this Court vide Ext. P4, whereby it has been held that the request made by the petitioner for issuance of electricity bill at the Industrial Tariff 'HT.I' in terms of the order passd by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission was quite sustainable, since the Board had not disputed the Regulatory Commission's Order issued on

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) No . 6842 OF 2010

¶38

12.09.2006. It was in the said circumstance, the Writ Petitions were allowed directing the respondents to change the petitioner's Tariff to HT.I and to revise the bill and recover the amount only accoridngly, with a further direction to raise future bills only at 'HT tariff'.

¶39

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that without any regard to the directions given by this Court, the respondents chose to proceed against the petitioner, which made the petitioner to approach this Court again by filing W.P.(C) No 4691 of 2008, wherein Ext.P7 interim order was passed, intercepting the recovery of the alleged arrears and also granting inteim stay until further orders.

¶40

This being the position, the respondents could not have imposed any condition to clear the said arrears as demanded in Ext. P9 letter dated 05.01.2010 so as to allow Ext.P8 application for additional power allocation, submits the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that similar issue has already been considered by this Court in another case, (W.P.(C) No. 21540 of 2009) leading to Ext.P11

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) No . 6842 OF 2010

¶43

judgment, whereby the respondents have been directed to consider the application, if it is complete in all respects and the petitioner therein having complied with all other requirements for additional allocation of power, appropriate orders have been passed without insisting to remit the amount claimed as per the disputed bill (implementation of which was stayed.)

¶44

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits that in view of the scarcity of power allocation , the respondent Board is not in a position to consider the request of the petitioner at this point of time. It is also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsl that because of the extreme scarcity of power, steps are being taken instructing the HT consumers as well as Extra HT consumers to scale down their consumption, so as to meet the requirement and for equitable distribution of power supply. This reason however is not reflected in Ext.P9, while, turning down the request made by the petitioner and rejecting the application, and the only reason stated therein is to satiisfy the disputed arrears and nothing more. That apart, it is also found that the petitioner is a

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No . 6842 OF 2010

¶47

Co-operative Society engaged in collection, storage and distribution of milk, which assumes a pivotal role in the day to day life of the general public and hence the request of the petitioner, as sought for in Ext. P8 is liable to be considered in

¶48

a wider magnitude and it stands on a higher pedestal.

¶49

In the above circumstances, Ext. P9 is set aside and the respondents are directed to re-consider Ext. P8 and pass appropriate orders thereon without insisting to clear the alleged arrears as a pre-condition to provide the benefits sought for. The application shall be considered on merits and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, appreciating the factual position in the most desired and deserving manner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of feceipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶50

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶51

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶52

M/S.Milma v. K.S.E.B.& Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Milma v. K.S.E.B.& Others

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

Jimmy Jose Vs Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Unnikrishnan Vs State Bank of Travancore

Thomaskutty Job Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation & Other

M.K.Balakrishnan Vs Susan Jacob

Lissy Jacob Vs Chief Manager and Authorized Officer and

Venu K.Nair Vs Rto, Pathanamthitta and 3 Others