Allowed

Thankamma Kuruvila v. Asst.Executive Engineer,Kseb

Kerala HC24 Oct 2011WP(C)/31617/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was dismissed in default by Justice P.N. Ravindran in February 2011. However, a substantive judgment delivered later by Justice P.R. Ramachandran Menon set aside revenue recovery proceedings, directed the respondent to reconsider liability for arrears and penalties referencing prior court observations, and stayed coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings set aside; 2nd respondent directed to reconsider matter within two months; coercive proceedings stayed.

Thankamma Kuruvila Vs Asst.Executive Engineer,Kseb — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 31617 of 2004(L) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

THANKAMMA KURUVILA, CHERUTHONE, VADASSERIKARA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB., ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, VADASSERIKKARA.

¶12

THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER, APTS(HQ), VIGILANCE WING, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

THE SECRETARY, KSEB, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, RANNI.

¶15

ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO R3

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

None appears for the petitioner. There was also no representation when the

¶19

case was called on for hearing. This writ petition is hence dismissed for default.

¶20

9.2.2011 SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶21

/ TRUE COPY /

¶22

P.S.TO JUDGE

¶23

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J

¶24

- - - - W.P.(C)No. 31617 OF 2004

¶25

¶26

Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2011

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner was running a saw mill with connection provided by the respondent Board bearing consumer No.2137 as LT IV consumer. While so, there was a surprise inspection by the APTS, on the premises on 17.02.1998, when certain incriminating circumstances were noted, involving theft of energy, which was followed by bills raised on the petitioner calculating the arrears payable as .21,904/- and .2,975/-. Since the said amount was not satisfied, the connection was cut off and it was dismantled on 06.05.1998.

¶29

The petitioner challenged the course and procedure pursued by the respondent before the Consumer Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta by filing O.P. No. 179/98, which culminated in Ext.P1 order dated 27.08.1998. As per Ext.P1, the

¶30

Forum set aside the impugned bills demanding a sum of .21,904/- and .2,975/- respectively holding that the figures were worked out more on a 'guess work'. In the said

¶31

WP(C) No. 31617 of 2004

¶32

-:2:-

¶33

circumstance, the reconnection was ordered to be given, however, reserving the rights and liberties of the Board to reconsider the matter and to issue revised bills.

¶34

The case of the petitioner is that revised bills were

¶35

issued merely by reducing the sum of .21,904 /- as .18,736/-; while the sum of .2,975/- was increased to .3,527/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said proceeding, which culminated in Ext.P2 order dated 19.04.2004; whereby a minor variation was brought about. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P2 order, the assessing officer passed Ext.P2 demanding a

¶36

total sum of `.37,027/-, aggrieved of which the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 2^nd respondent seeking to have the matter reconsidered and to revise the bills exempting the petitioner from surcharge, penalty etc. more so, when the supply itself was disconnected way back on 26.12.2001 and the petitioner was in no way liable or responsible. However, without taking any action on Ext.P4, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, which in turn are under challenge.

¶37

WP(C) No. 31617 of 2004

¶38

-:3:-

¶39

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents as well, who submits that the sequence of events has been described by the 3^rd respondent in the counter affidavit , seeking to sustain the revised bills.

¶40

However after hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the 2^nd respondent has not considered the specific case of the petitioner as to the disputed liability in respect of surcharge and penalty with reference to the observations made by the CDRF in Ext.P1, which has become final. It is stated that the petitioner is not liable to satisfy any surcharge when there was no demand at all. The matter requires to be reconsidered by the 2^nd respondent with reference to the observations as aforesaid, before the liability is quantified and sought to be realised. It is stated that, the unit itself has become defunct and that no supply is in existence.

¶41

In the said circumstance the impugned proceedings are set aside and the 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner; which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate

¶42

WP(C) No. 31617 of 2004

¶43

-:4:-

¶44

within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time.

¶45

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶46

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶47

ttb

Thankamma Kuruvila v. Asst.Executive Engineer,Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankamma Kuruvila v. Asst.Executive Engineer,Kseb

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

L.Indira Vs N.P.Norbert

C.N.Purushothaman Vs R.Bijuprabhakar IAS

V.K.Joy Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment).

Jose Kuttiyani Vs the Secy.to Govt.

Rev.Fr.Sebastian Panjikkaran Vs State of Kerala

M.J.Sibi John Vs the Sales Tax Officer