Remanded

Ramalingamoorthy v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC5 Jul 2012RSA/765/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the civil suit for recovery of electricity dues for un-metered energy was not maintainable under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court applied Section 126, noting the dispute must be resolved under the Act's specific mechanism, not civil court, potentially affecting the lower courts' finding of maintainability.

What did the court decide?

Findings on maintainability vacated to allow parties to proceed in accordance with the Electricity Act, 2003.

Ramalingamoorthy Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2012/14TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

RSA.No. 765 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN AS.354/2008 of II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE & SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD IN OS.243/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

RAMALINGAMOORTHY@RAMALINGESWARAMOORTHY S/O. MAYILSWAMI KOUNDER, PROPRIETOR M/S. SREE VENKITALAKSHMI OIL MILLS, MOONGILMADA VANNAMADA POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

¶10

SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶12

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUTH BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶13

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KOZHINJAMPARA P.O., CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. K.M. SATHYANATHA MENON, SC FOR KSEB

¶15

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

dlk

¶17

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. =====================

¶18

R.S.A. No. 765 of 2012

¶19

======================== Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Respondents appear through standing counsel, Sri. K.M. Sathyanatha Menon.

¶22

This second appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Palakkad in O.S. No. 243 of 2005, confirmed by the learned District Judge, Palakkad in A.S. No. 354 of 2008.

¶23

Appellant/Plaintiff sought a declaration that the bill in terms of Ext.A4, demand notice is illegal, ultravires etc. and for other reliefs. Appellant as proprietor is running an oil mill and is a consumer of electricity. On 10.12.2003 there was an inspection of the premises of the appellant by the authorities of the first respondent. In that inspection it was found that one phase of the meter installed in the premises of the appellant was not working and the appellant was using un-metered energy. Following that, the respondent issued Ext.A4, demand notice dated 11.04.2005 for realisation of charges for the period from 12/2002 to 12/2003. Appellant contended in the courts below that in view of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'), assessment made by the respondent for a period

¶24

R.S.A. No. 765 of 2012 -: 2 :-

¶25

for more than 2 years is illegal and hence the respondents are not entitled to realise the charges for the period from 12/2002 to 12/2003.

¶26

Respondent contended that they are entitled to recover charges for the unmetered energy used by the appellant from 12/2002 to 12/2003. They also contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 145 of the Act.

¶27

The trial court found in favour of the contentions raised by the respondent and dismissed the suit. That was confirmed by the first appellate court. Hence this second appeal.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of Section 56(2) of the Act, the assessment made for a period more than 2 years is illegal. Learned counsel contends that Section 56(2) of the Act has no application since that provision refers to neglected payment and not to charges payable for use of un-metered energy. According to the learned counsel, Section 126 of the Act would apply.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and

¶30

R.S.A. No. 765 of 2012 -: 3 :-

¶31

gone through Sections 56(2) and 126 of the Act, I am inclined to accept the argument that Section 126 of the Act would apply. If that be so, the grievance of the appellant has to be worked out in the manner stated therein and the civil court could not take cognizance of the dispute in view of Section 145 of the said Act. It follows that the suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable.

¶32

Since the courts below found and I have concurred that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 145 of the Act, all other findings entered by the courts below are unnecessary. Those finding would stand vacated giving it open to the parties to agitate that question as provided under law. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessment under Section 126 of the Act was challenged by the appellant before the appropriate authority under Section 127 of the Act.

¶33

Resultantly, this second appeal is disposed of as under:-

¶34

While no interference is required with the finding

¶35

of the courts below that the suit is maintainable in view

¶36

R.S.A. No. 765 of 2012 -: 4 :-

¶37

of Section 145 of the Act, all other finding entered by the trial and first appellate courts are vacated leaving it

¶38

open to the parties to proceed in accordance with law.

¶39

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶40

smv

¶41

Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE //True copy//

¶42

P.A. To Judge

¶43

The word “not” is inserted between the words “suit is” and the word “maintainable” in the operative portion (last line of page 3) of the judgment dated 05/07/2012 in R.S.A. No. 765/2012 as per order dated 03/10/2012.

¶44

Sd/Registrar (Judicial)

Ramalingamoorthy v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramalingamoorthy v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandy Vs K.O.Mathai

Divakaran Vs Udayan

K.T.Thomas Vs Alphonse Thomas

Kunjan Vasanthakiumar Vs Baby Geetha

Mohammed Thameem Vs Peeru Mohammed Meera Sahib

Avara Haji Vs Velayudhan