Remanded

Gowri Movie House v. K.S.E.B

Kerala HC12 Mar 2012WP(C)/1136/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Bench set aside the order of the assessing and appellate authorities in an electricity demand dispute. It remanded the matter to the assessing officer to decide afresh in conformity with the apex court judgment in Sitaram Rice Mill, emphasizing opportunity for hearing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the orders of the assessing and appellate authorities and remanding the matter to the assessing officer for fresh disposal within two months.

Gowri Movie House Vs K.S.E.B — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/22ND PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 1136 of 2010 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

GOWRI MOVIE HOUSE, P.O.KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED ITS PROPRIETRESS SMT. JOTHI.R.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER, SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,

¶11

PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

¶13

ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD.

¶14

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOLLENGODE.

¶15

BY MR.SHANTHALINGAM P., SENIOR ADVOCATE.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 1136 of 2010 (N)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE MAHAZAR.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE BILL DATED 07/12/2009.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10/12/2009.
EXT.P3A	COPY OF THE POWER CONSUMPTION OF THE AMPLIFIERS.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT BILL DATED 31/12/2009.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO.1292/2002 DATED 18/09/2002.
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23/12/2009 IN W.P.(C)NO. 37476/2009.
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE BILL FOR 11/2009.
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE DEMAND DATED 12/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19/12/2009.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

B.P.RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.1136 OF 2010

¶28

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel Sri.P.Santhalingam for the Kerala State Electricity Board.

¶31

The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision in C.A.No.8859 of 2011 dated 20^th October, 2011 [ Executive Engineer and another v. Sitaram Rice Mill] wherein the Apex Court in paragraphs 44 and 46 held as follows:

¶32

“44. Minimum energy charges are to be levied with reference to 'contract demand' at the rate prescribed under the terms and conditions. These clauses of the agreement clearly show that the charges for consumption of electricity are directly relatable to the sanctioned/connected load and also the load consumed at a given point of time if it is in excess of the sanctioned/connected load. The respondent could consume electricity upto 110 KVA but if the connected load exceeded that higher limit, the category of the respondent itself could stand changed from 'medium industry' which will be governed by a higher tariff.

¶33

xxxxx

¶34

On the cumulative reading of the terms and conditions of supply, the contract executed between the parties and the provisions of the 2003 Act, we have no hesitation in holding that consumption of electricity in excess of the sanctioned/connected load shall be an 'unauthorised use' of electricity in terms of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. This, we also say for the reason that overdrawal of electricity amounts to breach of the terms and conditions of the contract and the statutory conditions, besides such overdrawal being prejudicial to the public at large, as it is likely to throw out of gear the entire supply system, undermining its efficiency, efficacy and even increasing voltage fluctuations. In somewhat similar circumstances, where the consumer had been found to be drawing electricity in excess of contracted load and the general conditions of supply of

¶35

W.P.(C)No.1136 OF 2010

¶36

:: 2 ::

¶37

electricity energy by the Board and Clause 31(f) of the same empowered the Board to disconnect supply and even levy higher charges as per the tariff applicable, this Court held that such higher tariff charges could be recovered. While noticing the prejudice caused, the Court in the case Bhilari Rerollers and others v. M.P.Electricity Board and others (2003 KHC 1521 : 2003 (7) SCC 185 : JT 2003 (7) SC 215), held as under:

¶38

“21. The respondent Board, therefore, is entitled to raise the demand under challenge since such right has been specifically provided for and is part of the conditions for supply and particularly when such drawal of extra load in excess of the contracted load is bound to throw out of gear the entire supply system undermining its efficiency, efficacy not only causing stress on the installations of the Board but considerably affect other consumers who will experience voltage fluctuations. Consequently, we see no merit in the challenge made on behalf of the appellants. The appeals, therefore, fail and shall stand dismissed but with no costs.”

¶39

In that view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, I set aside the order of the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority and remit the matter to the assessing officer to dispose of the same in accordance with the judgment referred above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no penalty can be levied under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The assessing authority, while considering the matter, shall take into consideration all the observations of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission in D.P.75/2009 dated 19.1.2010 and the judgment of the Apex Court and decide the question afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The entire exercise shall be completed within a

¶40

W.P.(C)No.1136 OF 2010

¶41

:: 3 ::

¶42

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since, it is submitted that the petitioner has paid 50% of the demand, no further amount need be paid. According to the petitioner, he has filed an application for regularization of unauthorized additional load. If the authorities are in receipt of the same, it shall be disposed of, in accordance with law. In order to avoid delay, let the petitioner appear before the authority along with a copy of this judgment on 09.4.2012. It is open to the petitioner to raise all relevant points before the assessing authority, if so advised.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶44

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶45

jes

Gowri Movie House v. K.S.E.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowri Movie House v. K.S.E.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lali a.Alexander Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sureera Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B.

Thresiamma Thomas Vs District Collector, Kottayam

Md, Ksrtc Vs K.Parameswara Pillai

M.S. Satheesan Vs K.G. Mohanlal

S.Padmaja Devi Vs State Bank of Travancore