Dismissed

P.v.Ummer v. the Deputy Chief Engineer & Ors.

Kerala HC23 Feb 2012WP(C)/23215/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the disconnection of electricity and a penal bill issued for a single-phase meter deficiency in his flour mill. The petition sought quashing of the appeal order, reconnection of supply, and a declaration of non-liability to pay. The Court found no illegality in the orders and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.31,992/- in two equal monthly installments by April 2012 with no coercive action till then; writ petition dismissed.

P.v.Ummer Vs the Deputy Chief Engineer & Ors. — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/4TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 23215 of 2008 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.V.UMMER, S/O.ENU HAJI, PUDUPONNANI, PONNANI SOUTH - 679 586.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, TIRUR. (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT).

¶11

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, PONNANI.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PONNANI.

¶13

R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM,SC,KSEB

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C)NO.23215/2008

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/1/2008.

¶20

P2 COPY OF THE BILL NO.SM 724 DATED 30/11/2007

¶21

P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/12/2007.

¶22

P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.65810312070175 DATED 3/12/2007.

¶23

P5 COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.GB/HEARING/APTS/0708/1086 DATED 10/06/2008.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

B.P.RAY, J.

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

¶31

W.P.(C)No.23215 OF 2008

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2012

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶36

(i) call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and quash the same by the issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶37

(ii)To grant reconnection to the flour mill of the petitioner bearing consumer No.11206 of Ponnani Electric Section forthwith.

¶38

(iii)To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount covered by Ext.P2.

¶39

Petitioner is running a flour mill at Puduponnani in Malappuram

¶40

district. The allegation involved in this case is that APTS inspection conducted in the consumer premises on 29-11-2007 found that a single phase energy meter was fixed on an outer wall of the building which is adjacent to the building where a three phase industrial connection bearing Con.No.11206 was existing. Consequent to the inspection, a penal bill for Rs.31,992/- was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.16,000/-. Against the said bill, petitioner preferred a representation to the second respondent and thereafter, preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent dismissed the appeal and directed to pay the amount of Rs.31,992/- in full. Subsequently, electricity connection to the flour mill of the petitioner was disconnected on 29-7-2008. Hence the

¶41

W.P.(C)No.23215 OF 2008

¶42

:: 2 ::

¶43

petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶44

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders, I find no illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned in this writ petition. Petitioner is directed to pay the entire outstanding amount by the end of April 2012 in two equal monthly instalments. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶45

Writ petition is closed.

¶46

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶47

jes

P.v.Ummer v. the Deputy Chief Engineer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Ummer v. the Deputy Chief Engineer & Ors.

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

A.D.Ramesan and Others Vs K.T.Vasudevan and Others

G. Krishnankutty Nair Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

P.Kunjunni Nair Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Muraleedharan Vs the Assistant Engineer (Electrical Section)

P. Muraleedharan. Vs the Asst. Executive Engineer

M.T.Suresh Kumar Vs Kerala State Electricity Board and Other