Remanded

A.K.Muhammed Ali v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC13 Dec 2011WP(C)/27812/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court explained the Apex Court judgment in Executive Engineer v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill regarding Section 126 and 127 of the 2003 Act. The petition challenging provisional assessment orders was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a final order of assessment within three months.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Exts. P2, P10 and P11; remitted the matter to the assessing authority for disposal within three months.

A.K.Muhammed Ali Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Banking and Recovery | 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. 27812 of 2004(J)

PETITIONER:

A.K.MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.LATE A.KADER KUNHI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MASCOT FROZEN FOOD (P) LTD., AMBATTUKAVU, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

SRI.M.B.PRAJITH

RESPONDENTS:

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

¶15

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUARD, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, ALUVA.

¶17

ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB

¶18

SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(C) NO. 27812/2004

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST PREPARED BY THE ANTIPOWER THEFT SQUAD.

¶24

EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 29.05.2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2001. EXT.P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.06.2001 IN O.P. 17905/2001.

¶26

EXT.P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR.

¶27

EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE B.O. NO.46 OF 2003. EXT.P7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 6360 OF 1998 DATED 06.02.2004.

¶28

EXT.P8 : A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 03.05.2001. EXT.P9 : A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 25.04.2001. EXT.P10 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DY.CE/APTS/BV 5953/01-02/EKM/226 DATED 08.09.2004.

¶29

EXT.P11 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.09.2004.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶31

EXT.R1(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION B.O.(FB) NO.1292/2002(PLG.COM.4206/01) DATED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2002.

¶32

EXT.R1(b) : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER B.O.(FB) NO.46/2003 (PLG.COM.4206/01) DATED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 15TH JANUARY, 2003 ISSUED BY K.S.E. BOARD.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.P. RAY, J.

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

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 27812 of 2004

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following

¶43

prayers:

¶44

to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exts. P2, P10 and P11.

¶45

to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate wit or direction or order forbearing the respondents from disconnecting supply of electrical energy to the petitioner.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶47

learned Standing Counsel for KSEB. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P2 order was issued without prior notice as required by law.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

“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.

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(C). No.27812/2004

¶53

-:2:-

¶54

the authority to pass a final order of assessment as contemplated under Section 126(5) of the 2003 Act in accordance with law.”

¶55

Following the aforesaid decision , I set aside Exts.P2,

¶56

P10 and P11 and remit the matter to the assessing authority for disposal in accordance with law. The assessing authority shall dispose of the matter within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the assessing authority on 09.01.2012. It is open to the petitioner to raise all relevant points before the assessing authority.

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has paid 25,000/- in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court apart from 12,600/- paid as per the directions in Ext.P4 judgment. Amount, if any, remitted by the petitioner as per the directions of the court shall be given credit to. There will be no disconnection till such time.

¶58

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶59

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶60

¶61

W.P.(C). No.27812/2004

¶62

-:3:-

¶63

B.P. RAY, J.

¶64