Remanded

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

Kerala HC13 Dec 2011WP(C)/19188/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala issued a judgment in a writ petition regarding a disputed electricity invoice. It applied a Supreme Court precedent to set aside the invoice and remanded the matter to the assessing authority, directing the authority to pass a final order after providing a hearing to the petitioner. The court also directed that electric supply should not be disconnected and any amounts rem

What did the court decide?

Ext. P2 invoice set aside and matter remanded to assessing authority to dispose of after opportunity of hearing. No disconnection up to that time.

M/S.Epstien Plastics Vs Asst.Engineer, Kseb, Angamaly — Service and Employment | 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. 19188 of 2004(H) --------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

M/S.EPSTEIN PLASTICS, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, K.M.SHANAWAS.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ANGAMALY.

¶13

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB

¶16

SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(C) NO. 19188/2004

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASSAR DATED 25.06.2004 PREPARED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.48344 DATED 26.06.2004 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3	: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.06.2004 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.P. RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 19188 of 2004

¶28

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

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following

¶31

prayers:

¶32

to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records relating to Ext.P2 invoice and quashing the same.

¶33

to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first respondent to resume electric supply to the petitioner forthwith.

¶34

Heard Shri. Mohammed Rafiq, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. P Santhalingam, the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not heard before passing Ext.P2 order.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

“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.

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 19188/2004

¶40

-:2:-

¶41

under Section 126(5) of the 2003 Act in accordance with law.”

¶42

Following the aforesaid decision , I set aside Ext.P2 and remit the matter to the assessing authority to dispose of the same in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the assessing authority on 09.01.2012 along with a copy of this judgment. The assessing authority shall dispose of the matter within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.

¶43

Due credit shall be given to the amount of `50,000/-, if any, remitted towards Ext.P2 bill in pursuance to the interim order dated 01.07.2004 passed by this Court. There shall be no disconnection till such time.

¶44

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 19188/2004

¶48

-:3:-

¶49

B.P. RAY, J.

¶50

O.P.No. 13887 of 2002

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(C) No. 19188/2004

¶53

-:4:-

¶54

JUDGMENT

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

V.I.Baby Vs Kseb