Disposed

Babu C. George v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC14 Feb 2012WP(C)/3388/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge, Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by individuals seeking electricity connections for residential villas. The petition sought to quash a demand for penal charges/arrears and direct the respondents to process estimates within a time frame without insisting on payments stayed by this Hon'ble Court in a related writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 23261/2011).

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's objections, give opportunity of hearing, and complete the entire exercise within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment, with the

Babu C. George Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 3388 of 2012 (W)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

BABU C. GEORGE

¶8

S/O.P.G.GEORGE, RESIDING AT BCG ESTATE, NH BYEPASS

¶9

PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

RENU C.BABU

¶11

D/O.BABU C.GEORGE, BCG ESTATE, 5TH FLOOR

¶12

NH BYEPASS, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM

¶13

KOCHI.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN.695 004.

¶17

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD POWER HOUSE ROAD, KOCHI, PIN-682 018.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER

¶19

ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THRIKKAKKARA, PIN.682 021.

¶20

R BY SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WPC.No. 3388 of 2012 (W)

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE POWER REQUIREMENT APPLICATION DATED 22.06.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶27

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL POWER REQUIREMENT APPLICATION DATED 03.10.2011 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION DATED 24.05.2010.

¶29

EXT.P4(a) & : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 06.08.2011. P4(b) EXT.P5(a) & : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 03.10.2011. P5(b) EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 26.08.2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.23261/2011.

¶30

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DATED 06.01.2012 ISSUED BY R2.

¶31

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 19.01.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:u NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.P. RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 3388 of 2012

¶38

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

¶39

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2012.

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶42

The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the

¶43

following prayers:

¶44

Issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records leading to Ext.P7 and quash the same.

¶45

direct the respondents to process the estimate and grant connections to the petitioners within a time frame without insisting payments stayed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶46

The case of the petitioners is as follows:

¶47

The petitioners applied for the supply of power to the residential villas and residential flats named as BCG Misty Meadows. An amount of 7,38,647/- and 10,000/- were paid towards the cost of drawing lines and installation of transformer. For processing the estimate the 2^nd respondent insisted the payment of penal charges/arrears by Ext.P7 which is under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 23261 of 2011 and interim order has been granted by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that other formalities shall be completed within two weeks and that

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 3388/2012 : 2:

¶50

the petitioners have filed Ext.P8 reply before the authority in pursuance to Ext.P7 order. Let the respondents consider the objection of the petitioner and the connections be given. The entire exercise shall be completed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the penal charges, if any, subject to the result of W.P.(C) No. 23261 of 2011.

¶51

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶53

¶54

W.P.(C) No. 3388/2012

¶55

: 3:

¶56

B.P. RAY, J.

¶57

O.P.No. 13887 of 2002

¶58

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2012.

¶59

JUDGMENT

¶60

W.P.(C) No. 3388/2012 : 4:

Babu C. George v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu C. George 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Gopinathan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

P.Hemalatha Vs Asst. Educational Officer

Sajikumar.K Vs the District Collector,Pathanamthitta

Kodiyath Kizhakke Veettil Rajeswari Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.Surendran Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

P.Viswanathan Assary Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation