Allowed

St.Joseph Province of the Sisters v. the Sub Engineer

Kerala HC13 Dec 2011WP(C)/10107/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consumer filed writ challenge against reassessment bills for electricity consumption alleging meter defect. Court, following Supreme Court precedent, held that provisional assessments are not appealable. Order set aside compared bills and rematerial to authority for final assessment after meter inspection and hearing. Relief granted limited to jurisdictional issue.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P9 and P10 set aside; matter remitted to assessing authority for final order after meter inspection and hearing within three months.

St.Joseph Province of the Sisters Vs the Sub Engineer — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 10107 of 2005(C)

PETITIONER:

ST. JOSEPH PROVINCE OF THE SISTERS OF THE DESTITUTE, CHETHIPUZHA, KURISUMMOODU, CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER SUPERIOR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW

¶11

SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THENGANA, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶16

THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, K.S.E.B., KOTTAYAM.

¶17

ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) NO.10107/2005

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF BILLS FOR THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY SERIES CONSUMED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF PREMISES METER CARD KEPT BY THE SIDE OF THE METER.

¶24

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF METER READING KEPT IN THE KSEB OFFICE RECORD BOOK MARKED BY THE METER READERS.

¶25

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF BILL DATED 11.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE.

¶26

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT.06.10.2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF BILL DATED 20.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 21.10.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DT.30.10.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.21.02.2005 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF REVISED INVOICE DT.05.03.2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.P. RAY, J.

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

¶38

W.P.(C) No.10107 of 2005

¶39

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

¶40

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2011.

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB.

¶43

The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy with Consumer No. 5912. The petitioner was regular in paying the electricity charges. The normal consumption was between 700 to 1000 units per month. It is alleged that for the period 09.09.2004 to 09.10.2004, 3840 units were consumed by the petitioner. The petitioner was served with Ext.P4 bill for 10,057/- along with a notice stating that one phase of the meter is not recording energy and the petitioner is liable to pay 50% of the recorded consumption to compensate the unrecorded portion of the energy. The petitioner was again served with Ext.P6 bill for 32,589/- stating that the petitioner should pay 50% of the recorded consumption for the period during which there was a jump or spurt in the meter apart from the alleged consumption of 3840 units. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P9 order dated 21.02.2005 disposed of the appeal directing the Asst. Engineer,

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 10107/2005

¶45

-:2:-

¶46

Electrical Section, Thengana to revise the reassessment bill by making reassessment for 50% of the recorded consumption to compensate the unrecorded portion of energy retrospectively for the past six months from the date of change of the old meter based on the final reading taken at the time of change of the old meter. As per Ext.P9 order, the petitioner was served with Ext.P10 bill for an amount of Rs.20,062/-. Hence this writ petition.

¶47

3. In a recent judgment passed by the Apex Court in Executive Engineer and another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill

¶48

(C.A. No. 8859 of 2011), it is held as follows:

¶49

“As per Section 127 of the 2003 Act, only a final order of assessment passed under Section 126(3) is an order appealable under Section 127 and a notice-cum provisional assessment made under Section 126(2) is not appealable. Thus, the High Court should normally decline to interfere in a final order of assessment passed by the assessing officer.

¶50

The High Court having dealt with the jurisdictional issue, the appropriate course of action would have been to remand the matter to the assessing authority by directing the consumer to file his objections, if any, as contemplated under Section 126(3) and require the authority to pass a final order of assessment as contemplated under Section 126(5) of the 2003 Act in accordance with law.”

¶51

Following the aforesaid decision , I set aside Exts.P9 and P10 and remit the matter to the assessing authority to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Let the petitioner pay `10,000/- on or before 09.01.2012 on which date the

¶52

W.P.(C) No. 10107/2005

¶53

-:3:-

¶54

petitioner shall appear before the assessing authority. The assessing authority shall inspect the meter through authorised officer and if found defective new meter shall be installed and the petitioner will be given an opportunity of hearing before raising any further demand. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.

¶55

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶56

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶57

¶58

W.P.(C) No. 10107/2005

¶59

-:4:-

¶60

B.P. RAY, J.

¶61

O.P.No. 13887 of 2002

¶62

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2011.

¶63

JUDGMENT

St.Joseph Province of the Sisters v. the Sub Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.Joseph Province of the Sisters v. the Sub Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Sureshkumar.T.v Vs University Grants Commission

Chaliyam-Beypore Matsyathozhilali Vs District Collector, Kozhikode

Prof.P.M.Thomas Vs Dist.Collector, Pathanamthitta

A.K.Muhammed Ali Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Kap India Tiles Vs Labour Court

M/S.Epstien Plastics Vs Asst.Engineer, Kseb, Angamaly