Partly allowed

P.C.Khader Haji v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC25 Sept 2012WP(C)/7834/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding damages to KSEB lines caused by the petitioner's rock blasting, the High Court modified the order to fix the interest rate on the payable amount at 6% per annum instead of the higher rate applicable to electricity arrears. The court directed the Board to recompute the demand based on this rate.

What did the court decide?

Modified the impugned order to allow the petitioner to satisfy the principal amount with interest at 6% per annum from 1.12.2001. Directed the Board to serve a demand notice within two weeks and be pa

P.C.Khader Haji Vs the Kerala State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/3RD ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 7834 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.C.KHADER HAJI, AGED 40 YEARS CHERUTHODIYIL HOUSE, OLAVATTUR P.O.,KONDOTTY VIA, MALAPPURAMD IST-REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANWAR SADATH, CHERUTHODIYIL HOUSE, OLAVATTUR P.O.,ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION NORTH CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673001

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR TRANSMISSION SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 505.

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, 110 K.V.SUB STATION COMPOUND, MALAPPURAM-676505

¶14

R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN,SC,K.S.E.B. BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 7834 of 2012 (D)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 28/4/1999 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 3/8/1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 01/02/2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 17/2/2000 IN OP. NO. 5028 OF 2000.
EXT.P5:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 10/7/2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 23/2/2001 IN OP NO 28916 OF 2000.
EXT.P7:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 31/5/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 12/7/2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 17/2/2006 IN OP NO 23784 OF 2001.
EXT.P10:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE TO THE PETITIOENR U/S 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.
EXT.P10(A)	:-A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.
EXT.P11:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD 20/9/2011 IN WPC.NO. 19713 OF 2011.
EXT.P12:-	A TRUE COPYOF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD 18/8/2011 IN IA NO 11532 OF 2011 IN OP NO 23784 OF 2001
EXT.P13:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD 25/8/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIENR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P14:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO CE/TRN/TA-CASES/11-12-1719 DTD 21/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPODENT.
EXT.P15:-	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶26

W.P.(C). No. 7834 of 2012

¶27

Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The issue involved in this case is with regard to the fixation of liability in respect of damages, allegedly caused at the instance of the petitioner due to rock blasting in his property, whereby the 110 KV line drawn between Shornur – Kozhikode and insulators were dangerously damaged between the points 184 to 186.

¶30

The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that, pursuant to the blasting operation conducted by the petitioner and adverse circumstance resulted, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 notice dated 28.4.1999, alerting the petitioner about the consequence and asking to stop the blasting of rock immediately. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not pay any heed to this and continued with the rock blasting exercise and later submitted Ext.P2 submission dated 3.8.1999, making it clear that he was ready to satisfy any liability required to repair the damage sustained, if any, near to his property. It was also pointed out that, large scale blasting was being done by

¶31

W.P.C. No. 7834 of 2012

¶32

-2-

¶33

the PWD as well.

¶34

Subsequently, in the course of time, the Board issued Ext.P3 demand after fixing the liability to the tune of Rs.4,31,100/-(Rupees four lakhs thirty one thousand and hundred) towards the cost of materials and labour charges for repairing the 'line' at the the damaged portion, making it clear that, the amount was rather tentative and can be finalized only after completion of the work. The petitioner challenged the above proceedings by filing O.P.No.5028 of 2000, which was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment, whereby Ext.P3 was set aside and the second respondent was directed to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This led to Ext.P5 order, re-fixing the liability after a joint inspection conducted on 29.6.2000 as Rs.3,38,500/-(Rupees three lakhs thirty eight thousand five hundred). The petitioner was still feeling aggrieved and accordingly, he approached this Court again by filing O.P.No.28916 of 2000. After hearing both the sides, since the authorities agreed to have a further 'joint inspection' and to have the liability settled accordingly, Ext.P6

¶35

W.P.C. No. 7834 of 2012

¶36

-3-

¶37

judgment was passed on 23.2.2001, whereby the O.P. was disposed of giving appropriate directions to the authorities of the Board.

¶38

In furtherance to the above judgment, a 'joint inspection' was conducted as agreed, on 30.5.2001 and that the matter was being pursued accordingly. On the very next day, after the joint inspection, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 'Undertaking'

¶39

agreeing to execute the repair works in respect of damage caused to the 110 KV line between Shornur – Kozhikode, at the cost of the petitioner, to the satisfaction of KSEB, utilizing the materials to be supplied by the KSEB, as discussed in the course of joint inspection. The name of the party who will execute the work at the instance of the petitioner was also shown in Ext.P7. It was pursuant to this, that the petitioner was required to satisfy

¶40

a sum of Rs. 4,34,050/-(Rupees four lakhs thirty four thousand and fifty) vide Ext.P8 communication dated 12.7.2001. The petitioner challenged the same by filing O.P.No.23784/2001. After hearing, the petitioner was relegated to approach the 4^th respondent in O.P., Chief Engineer, Transmission North Circle,

¶41

W.P.C. No. 7834 of 2012 -4-

¶42

Kozhikode who in turn was directed to consider and finalize the matter within the time as specified.

¶43

According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the verdict passed by this Court as per Ext.P9, who came to know about the same only on service of notice under the R.R. Act as borne by Exts.P10/P10(a) demanding a huge liability of Rs.13,54,236/-(Rupees thirteen lakhs fifty four thousand two

¶44

hundred and thirty six). The R.R notice was subjected to challenge by filing W.P.(C).No.19713 of 2011, where it was intercepted by passing an interim order staying the recovery. As per Ext.P12 order in I.A.No.11532/2011 in O.P.23784/2001, the petitioner was directed to approach the 4^th respondent in O.P., Chief Engineer, Transmission North Circle, Kozhikode, enlarging the time fixed in Ext.P9 judgment till 31.08.2011. It was accordingly, that the petitioner approached the concerned respondent by filing Ext.P13, which was considered, leading to Ext.P14 order dated 21.12.2011, making it obligatory to the petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rs.4,22,119/-(Rupees four lakhs twenty two thousand one hundred and nineteen) with interest

¶45

W.P.C. No. 7834 of 2012 -5-

¶46

rate of 24% per annum till 1.11.2008 and at the rate of 18% thereafter. This was followed by Ext.P15 demand notice for a total sum of Rs.13,69,776/-(Rupees thirteen lakhs sixty nine thousand seven hundred and seventy six). The petitioner is challenging Exts.P14 and P15, raising many a ground.

¶47

The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit pointing out the facts and figures and also the extensive damage caused to the electric lines because of the blasting operations conducted by the petitioner. It is asserted that, after different rounds of litigation and pursuant to the 'joint inspection' conducted as agreed and also as per Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 voluntarily, expressing his willingness to execute the complete repair works and it was accordingly, that Ext.P8 order was issued requiring to satisfy a sum of Rs.4,34,050/-(Rupees four lakhs thirty four thousand and fifty), which subsequently came down to Rs.4,22,119/-(Rupees four lakhs twenty two thousand one hundred and nineteen) as given in Ext.P14, with interest as specified. The learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that there is absolutely no merit or

¶48

W.P.C. No. 7834 of 2012 -6-

¶49

bonafides in the writ petition and that the petitioner was successfully evading the payment for more than a decade, which is liable to be taken serious note of.

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the interest charged, as given in Ext.P14 is having absolutely no rhyme or reason, at exorbitant rate, which is applicable only for collection of electricity charges. Such a higher rate is prescribed to see that the electricity charges are paid by the consumers without fail, which cannot be the rate in respect of damages or compensation payable to the Board or such other amounts payable to the Board other than the electricity charges. Admittedly, in the case of the petitioner, the amount demanded is not towards the electricity charges, though such an observation is made in Ext.P14 and it is only in respect of the cost incurred for repairing the electric lines, in respect of the damage caused.

¶51

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, when the matter was heard on the last occasion, it was asked whether the petitioner was ready to satisfy the liability, if interest rate was reduced to 6% (as provided for

¶52

W.P.C. No. 7834 of 2012 -7-

¶53

future interest specified under Section 34 of the C.P.C.). The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to satisfy the entire amount towards the damages fixed as per Ext.P14 with interest at the rate of 6%.

¶54

Heard the learned counsel for the Board in this regard as well, particularly, as to the course and events.

¶55

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is no merit with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner as to the disputed liability in respect of the damages payable to the Board. This is more so, in view of the facts and figures revealed from the proceedings including the undertaking given by the petitioner as per Ext.P7, pursuant to 'joint inspection' as agreed to and ordered by this Court as per Ext.P6. The grievance is only with regard to the rate of interest. This Court finds that there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the rate of interest in respect of the electricity charges payable cannot be ipso facto made applicable to the case where it involves damages or compensation.

¶56

W.P.C. No. 7834 of 2012

¶57

-8-

¶58

After considering the particular facts and circumstances and also to strike a balance, this Court finds that the payment of interest at the rate of '6%' in toto on the amount quantified towards the cost incurred by the KSEB as given in Ext.P14 will be adequate. In the said circumstances, Ext.P14 will stand modified to the above extent. The petitioner shall satisfy the principal amount of Rs.Rs.4,22,119/-(Rupees four lakhs twenty two thousand one hundred and nineteen) with interest at the rate of 6% form 1.12.2001, till the date of satisfaction. It is seen that, as per interim order dated 25.6.2012, the petitioner was directed to satisfy a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs), which is stated as complied with. In the said circumstance, the Board will recompute the figures as to the remaining liability in terms of the above observations and a demand notice shall be served to the petitioner within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the due amount shall be cleared by the petitioner within one month thereafter. If the amount as above is not satisfied by the petitioner in time, it will be open for the respondent Board to take appropriate steps for

¶59

W.P.C. No. 7834 of 2012

¶60

-9-

¶61

realization of the entire amount as originally ordered as per Ext.P14 carrying interest at such higher rate. It is made clear that, no petition for enlargement of time will be entertained in any circumstance.

¶62

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶63

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶64

Kp/-

P.C.Khader Haji v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.C.Khader Haji v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Simi Jose Vs the State of Kerala

Bindhu George Vs Union of India

Naseer C. Vs State of Kerala

M/S. International Merchandise Trade Vs Intelligence Officer (Ib)

R.Nalinakshan Pillai Vs the State of Kerala

Biju Lazer Vs Director General Crpf