Remanded

Chinmaya Vidyalaya v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Others

Kerala HC15 Feb 2012WP(C)/8426/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the orders of the assessing and appellate authorities regarding electricity charges. It remanded the matter for the assessing officer to impose penalties as per the Supreme Court decision in Sitaram Rice Mill, allowing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the demand within one month and decide within two months after hearing all points.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to assessing officer to dispose within two months; petitioner to deposit 50% demand within one month.

Chinmaya Vidyalaya Vs Kerala State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/26TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8426 of 2010 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA, VADUTHAALA ERNAKLULAM PIN-682 023, REPRESENTED BY ITS CORRESPONDENT/SECRETARY, RAMKUMAR MENON.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.KKM.SHERIF

¶9

SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶10

SRI.V.R.REKESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUDHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA

¶14

STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE

¶15

ERNAKULAM.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VADUTHALA ERNAKULAM.

¶17

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶18

R1-3 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R4 BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR,SC,KSERC R1 TO R3 BY SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB R4 BY SRI.ANEESH JAMES,SC,KSEB REGULATORY COM BY SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR,SC,KSEB REGULATORY COM

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 8426 of 2010 (C)

¶21

: 2 :

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZER DATED 23.06.2009. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.06.2009.

¶25

EXT.P2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PENAL INVOICE DATED 24.06.2009 FOR RS.5,12,497/-.

¶26

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE B.O.(FB) NO.1291/2002. (PLG.COM 4206/01) DATED 18.09.2009.

¶27

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE B.O. (FM) NO.368/2008 (DPC1/CG1/182/2007 DATED 07.02.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2009. EXT.P5(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 29.07.2009. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 14.08.2009.

¶29

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2010 BEARING NO.GB1/CHINMAYA/2009/685.

¶30

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 27.02.2010. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.06.2009.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.P. RAY, J.

====================================

¶37

W.P.(C)No. 8426 of 2010

¶38

====================================

¶39

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2012.

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel Sri.P.Santhalingam for the Kerala State Electricity Board.

¶42

The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision in Executive Engineer and another v. Sitaram Rice Mill

¶43

reported in (2010 (4) KHC 1) wherein the Apex Court in paragraphs 44 and 46 held as follows:

¶44

“44. Minimum energy charges are to be levied with reference to 'contract demand' at the rate prescribed under the terms and conditions. These clauses of the agreement clearly show that the charges for consumption of electricity are directly relatable to the sanctioned/connected load and also the load consumed at a given point of time if it is in excess of the sanctioned/connected load. The respondent could consume electricity upto 110 KVA but if the connected load exceeded that higher limit, the category of the respondent itself could stand changed from 'medium industry' which will be governed by a higher tariff. 45. xxxxx

¶45

On the cumulative reading of the terms and conditions of supply, the contract executed between the parties and the provisions of the 2003 Act, we have no hesitation in holding that consumption of electricity in excess of the sanctioned/connected load shall be an 'unauthorised use' of electricity in terms of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. This, we also say for the reason that

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 8426/2010

¶47

: 2:

¶48

overdrawal of electricity amounts to breach of the terms and conditions of the contract and the statutory conditions, besides such overdrawal being prejudicial to the public at large, as it is likely to throw out of gear the entire supply system, undermining its efficiency, efficacy and even increasing voltage fluctuations. In somewhat similar circumstances, where the consumer had been found to be drawing electricity in excess of contracted load and the general conditions of supply of electricity energy by the Board and Clause 31(f) of the same empowered the Board to disconnect supply and even levy higher charges as per the tariff applicable, this Court held that such higher tariff charges could be recovered. While noticing the prejudice caused, the Court in the case Bhilari Rerollers and others v. M.P.Electricity Board and others (2003 KHC 1521 : 2003 (7) SCC 185 : JT 2003 (7) SC 215), held as under:

¶49

“21. The respondent Board, therefore, is entitled to raise the demand under challenge since such right has been specifically provided for and is part of the conditions for supply and particularly when such drawal of extra load in excess of the contracted load is bound to throw out of gear the entire supply system undermining its efficiency, efficacy not only causing stress on the installations of the Board but considerably affect other consumers who will experience voltage fluctuations. Consequently, we see no merit in the challenge made on behalf of the appellants. The appeals, therefore, fail and shall stand dismissed but with no costs.”

¶50

In that view of the authoritative pronouncement of the

¶51

Apex Court, I set aside the order of the assessing authority as well as

¶52

the appellate authority and remit the matter to the assessing officer

¶53

to dispose of the same in accordance with the judgment referred

¶54

W.P.(C) No. 8426/2010 : 3:

¶55

above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no penalty can be levied under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The assessing authority, while considering the matter, shall take into consideration all the observations of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission in D.P.75/2009 dated 19.1.2010 and the judgment of the Apex Court and decide the question afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment subject to the condition that, as agreed, the petitioner deposits 50% of the demand within one month. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 50% of the demand has already been deposited. Amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be given credit to. In order to avoid delay, let the petitioner appear before the authority along with a copy of this judgment on 14.3.2012. It is open to the petitioner to raise all relevant points before the assessing authority, if so advised.

¶56

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶57

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶58

¶59

W.P.(C) No. 8426/2010

¶60

: 4:

¶61

B.P. RAY, J.

¶62