Allowed

Viju Paul v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC21 Feb 2012WP(C)/3541/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, proprietor of a small scale food industry, sought a direction for electric connection under an executed minimum guarantee agreement after the respondent board refused performance due to a scheme change. Following a precedent, the court directed the authorities to provide the connection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to provide electric connection under the minimum guarantee agreement within 45 days of compliance with statutory requirements and payment of fees.

Viju Paul 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 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/2ND PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 3541 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VIJU PAUL, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE PAUL, CHUNGATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O. MUKKATTUKARA VIA., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PROPRIETOR, LEELA FOODS, BUILDING NO.3/53-54 KOZHINJAMPARA P.O., CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDUTHI BHAVAN

¶12

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶13

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶14

ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION

¶15

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶16

SUB STATION CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 101.

¶17

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD PIN-678 555.

¶18

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PIN-695 001.

¶19

R1-R4 BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD BY SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 3541 of 2012 (P)

¶22

: 2 :

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶25

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED LEASE DEED NO.1687/10 DATED 31.5.2010.
EXT.P2:	TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION DETAILS DATED 10.11.2010.
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF SANCTION ORDER DATED 1.4.2011.
EXT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF CONSENT NO.PCB/PLKD/IC/CE/896/2011 DATED 7.9.2011.
EXT.P5:	TRUE COPY OF LICENSE NO.A3 214/11 DATED 17.9.2011.
EXT.P6:	TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 16.9.2011.
EXT.P7:	TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 9.1.2012.
EXT.P8:	TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.197924 DATED 21.5.2011.
EXT.P9:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.3086/11 DATED 16.9.2011.
EXT.P10:	TRUE COPY OF MINIMUM GUARANTEE AGREEMENT DATED 4.8.2011.
EXT.P11:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER BO (FM)NO.2536/2011/KSEB/TRAC/S CODE/SCC/R2/09 DATED 28.10.2011.
EXT.P12:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.1.2012.
EXT.P13:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER BO(FM)(GENL)NO.224/2012 (DPCI/C- G1/31/2003) DATED 28.1.2012.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge.

B.P. RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 3541 of 2012

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2012.

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB.

¶35

The petitioner is the proprietor of a Small Scale Industrial Unit by name M/s. Leela Foods which is a manufacturing unit of rice powder and related products. The petitioner requires an electric connection by installing 160 KV transformer under Lower Tension (LT) category. An amount of `10,000/- has been paid as advance for processing the work for the supply of connection. By Ext.P9, the Grama Panchayath granted permission to install 160 KV transformer in the unit. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into Ext.P10 minimum guarantee agreement with the respondents to install the transformer and to give electric connection. The respondents refuses to give electric connection in terms of Ext.P10 agreement stating that the department has now changed the minimum guarantee scheme by issuing Exts.P11 and P13 orders and that the petitioner should take electric connection under the

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 3541/2012

¶37

-:2:-

¶38

normal scheme. Hence this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to provide electric connection to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P10 minimum guarantee agreement.

¶39

The learned Standing Counsel submits that in a similar case viz., W.P.(C) No. 34223 of 2011, this Court has directed the KSEB to honor the minimum guarantee agreements already executed and to extend lines and connections.

¶40

Following the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority among the respondents to give electricity connection to the petitioner under the minimum guarantee agreement executed by him on the petitioner complying with the statutory requirements and paying the requisite fees and charges within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 3541/2012

¶44

-:3:-

¶45

B.P. RAY, J.

¶46

O.P.No. 13887 of 2002

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 3541/2012

¶48

-:4:-

¶49

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2012.

¶50

JUDGMENT

Viju Paul v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viju Paul 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.N.Ravichandran Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

P.a.Salim Vs Kseb

C.J.Mathew Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kumar @ Sree Kumar S. Vs Director General Indo Tibetan

Vidyasagaran Vs Sub Inspector of Fisheries

Abdul Azeez Vs Sulaiman