Petitioner challenged electricity nexus notices via writ of certiorari. Court, relying on Abdul Nazer, noted that arrears pre-dating the 2003 Act are recoverable without limitation. Dismissed the writ petition without interference.
Writ petition dismissed with no interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/28TH MAGHA 1933
WP(C).No. 29722 of 2008 (L)
PETITIONER
T.K.PAREEKUTTY HAJI,SECRETARY, KODUVALLY MUSLIM ORPHANAGE COMMITTEE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY
RESPONDENT
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B BY ADV.SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MG
WP(C).No. 29722 of 2008 (L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1:COPY OF NOTICE DATED 05.12.07. EXT.P2:COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO:P14/08/56 DATED 10.09.2008. EXT.P3:COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES. EXT.P4;COPY OF THE NOTICE AND CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED 24.09.2008.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
MG
B.P.RAY, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.29722 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of February, 2012
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with a prayer to call for the records leading to Exts.P1 and P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
The said connection was allotted to the building belonging to the Koduvally Muslim Orphanage Committee. Several tenants had occupied the said building as per various license agreements. The petitioner had been remitting the bills in time without any failure. Due to meter failure, new meter was installed. It was noticed that there was change in the meter reading and the new meter was showing more consumption. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 notice demanding Rs.31,548/- towards usage charges. The petitioner challenged the same in CRGF, but the same was dismissed. Against the order of CGRF, an appeal was filed before the Electricity Ombudsman. The appeal was allowed in part vide Ext.P2 order. But the prayer to set aside Ext.P1 was not considered in its correct perspective by the Ombudsman since it was time barred under Section 56(2) of Electricity Act. Now the respondent has issued Ext.P4 notice demanding Rs.11,113/-. Hence the petitioner filed this writ petition.
W.P.(C)No.29722 OF 2008
:: 2 ::
In view of the said pronouncement of this court, I do not find any reason to interefere with this matter at this stage. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
B.P.RAY, JUDGE
jes
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the electricity dues and notice should be dismissed.
Whether the limitation bar under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act applies to the recovery of arrears.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdul Nazer v. KSEBFollowed¶32
Abdul Nazer v. KSEB (2006(1) KLT 811)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.K. Pareekutty Haji, Secretary, Koduvally Muslim Orphanage Committee
Kerala State Electricity Board
B. P. Ray
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
