V.I.Baby v. Kseb
Case brief
What is this about?
The court set aside the demand notice and order passed by the Electricity Board, remitting the matter to the assessing authority to pass a final order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, applying recent Apex Court precedents on procedural compliance.
What did the court decide?
Set aside Exts. P2 and P6 orders; remitted the matter to the assessing authority to dispose of after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933
WP(C).No. 18662 of 2004(V)
PETITIONER:
V.I.BABY, PROPRIETOR, VETTUKATTIL TEXTILES, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF
SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K.
SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI
RESPONDENTS:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the demand notice issued under Ext.P2 should be quashed for lack of prior notice.
Whether Ext.P5 clause 6 is discriminatory and arbitrary or should be set aside.
Whether the Low Voltage Electricity Supply Rules, 2005 impose liability for remission costs.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
V.I. Baby, Proprietor, Vettukattil Textiles
- respondent
The Kerala State Electricity Board
- respondent
The Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, College
- respondent
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, College
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court