Remanded

Abraham Mathew v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC7 Mar 2012WP(C)/8027/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging electricity tariff assessment and demanding re-assessment of connected loads. The court remitted the matter to the assessing authority for re-evaluation of load and tariff category with a hearing opportunity. Excess amounts found shall be adjusted in future bills.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing the Assessing Authority to re-assess connected loads and tariff rate after installation of a new meter with an opportunity of being heard.

Abraham Mathew 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/17TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8027 of 2007 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ABRAHAM MATHEW VETTOOR, S/O.MATHEW, ADVOCATE, C.C.LXVI 1818, ST.BENEDICT'S ROAD, (WEST END), ERNAKULAM VILLAGE KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KOCHI-18.

¶8

2. SMT.V.K.BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O.P.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, C.C LXVI 1819 ST.BENEDICT'S ROAD (WEST END), ERNAKULAM, VILLAGE KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KOCHI-18.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶13

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOAD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION

¶14

POWER HOUSE ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018.

¶15

3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB,

¶16

ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,(CENTRAL), POWER HOUSE ROAD ERNAKULAM.

¶17

4. THE ASST.ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, (CENTRAL), POWER HOUSE ROAD ERNAKULAM.

¶18

BY ADV.SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB BY ADV.SMT.P.K.RADHIKA-KSEB

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

tss

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.8027/2007

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶24

P1:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R 5546003909 FOR RS. 584 DTD. 21.6.2004. P2:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R.55460029767 FOR RS. 952/- DTD. 19.8.2004. P3:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R.55460044435 FOR RS. 891/-DTD. 19.10.2004. P4:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R.55460060647 FOR RS. 1091/- DTD. 17.12.2004. P5:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R.55460076194 FOR RS. 1174/- DTD. 18.2.2005. P6:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R.55460090513 FOR RS. 1304/- DTD. 20.4.2005. P7:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R.55460105987 FOR RS. 951/- DTD. 18.6.005. P8:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R.55460122036 FOR RS. 511/- DTD. 19.8.2005. P9:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R.556038302 FOR RS. 896/- DTD. 20.10.2005. P10:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R.55460153894 FOR RS. 896/- DTD. 21.12.2005. P11:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R.55460169095 FOR RS. 836/- DTD. 20.2.06.

¶25

P12:- COPY OF THE BILL NO. R.55460184943 FOR RS. 826/- DTD. 20.4.2006. P13:- COPY OF THE BILL NBO.55460200616 FOR RS. 1658/- DTD. 21.6.2006.

¶26

P14:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 26.6.2006.

¶27

P15:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.55460216914 DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF S. 2692/- DTD. 23.8.2006.

¶28

P16:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 29.8.2006.

¶29

P17:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.55460232503 FOR RS. 2516/- DTD. 20.10.2006.

¶30

P18:- COPY OF THE BILL N.R.55460250013 DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.2516/P DTD. 22.12.2006.

¶31

19:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 22.12.2006.

¶32

tss

¶33

W.P.(C) NO.8027/2007

¶34

P20:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 22.12.2006.

¶35

P21:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 1.2007.

¶36

P22:- COPY OF THE BILL NO.R.55460265819 FOR RS. 2516/- DTD. 25.2.2003.

¶37

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶38

R3(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.T3-6860/2009/EIE DTD. 13.7.2009 AND THE TEST CERTIFICATE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR ERNAKULAM.

¶39

R3(b):- COPY OF THE FILE NO.T3 -7852/09/EIE AND THE TEST CERTIFICATE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR ERNAKULAM.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

B.P.RAY, J.

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

¶45

W.P.C.No. 8027 of 2007

¶46

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

¶47

Dated this the 7 th day of March, 2012.

¶48

J U D G M E N T

¶49

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶50

petitioners. The 1^st petitioner herein is an advocate and the

¶51

2^nd petitioner is the owner of the house. They have filed

¶52

this application with the following prayers:

¶53

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs orders of directions commanding the respondents to install a properly working meter in the premises of the petitioners and subject the present meter for inspection by Electrical Inspector to ascertain the actual consumption made by the petitioners during the period in which the respondents charged the petitioner on the basis of the average reading of 350 units.

¶54

ii)Declare that the tariff change effected from LT1 (a) to LT VI B without any notice or inspection of the premises and without reference to the connected load is illegal and arbitrary and consequently issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 3 and 4 to revoke the illegal tariff change and restore LT1(a) category tariff to the petitioners.

¶55

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs orders or direction commanding the respondents to refund the excess or direction commanding the respondents to refund the excess amount collected by way of Ext.P13, P15, P17 and P18 and issue a proper bill instead of Ext.22 giving due credit to the interest at the rate of 12% on the excess amounts so collected.

¶56

iv)To stay all further proceedings for recovery of the amounts as demanded Ext.P22 including disconnection pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass an interim order to that effect.”

¶57

The main contention raised in this writ petition by

¶58

the petitioners is that the petitioners should be assessed

¶59

with regard to the tariff charges as LT1(a) category in spite

¶60

W.P.C.No. 8027 of 2007

¶61

¶62

of LT VIB category. The learned counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board, Smt.Radhika submits that 50% of the load can be assessed as LT1(a) and another 50% as LT VIB category. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the connected loads have to be re-assessed after the installation of a new meter.

¶63

In view of the above said contentions, I remit this matter to the Assessing Authority to re-assess the connected loads as well as the tariff rate after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Petitioners are free to raise all relevant points for consideration before the Assessing Authority. If any excess amount is found in the re-assessment, the same shall be adjusted in the future bills of the petitioners.

¶64

This writ petition is disposed as above.

¶65

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶66

su/-

Abraham Mathew v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham Mathew 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

A.K.Girija Vs State of Kerala

A.K.Girija Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Tecil Chemicals and Hydor Power Vs State of Kerala and Others

Lions Club of Muvattupuzha Vs K.S.E.B.

Dileep a.S.& Others Vs Kerala Public Service Commission and Anr.

Sri.N.R.Prasad Vs K.S.E.B.