Partly allowed

Satheesh Kumar v. K.S.E.B.

Kerala HC28 Feb 2012WP(C)/9982/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that petitioners, being agriculturists, are entitled to exemption from electricity dues from the date of connection under the Ammini Gopalakrishnan case principles. It directed the KSEB to pass consequential orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Entitlement to exemption from payment of electricity dues from the date of connection declared. KSEB directed to pass consequential orders on exemptions within six weeks.

Satheesh Kumar Vs K.S.E.B. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/9TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 9982 of 2008 (L)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O. LATE VISWANATHAN, CONSUMER NO.5573, RESIDING AT THATTANCHALLA

¶8

K.K.PATHY P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

¶9

RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE APPUKUTTAN

¶10

CONSUMER NO.6473, RESIDING AT THATTANCHALLA

¶11

K.K.PATHY P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

¶12

K.M.NATARAJ, S/O.LATE MAYILSWAMY GOUNDER CONSUMER NO.3574, RESIDING AT K.K.CHALLA

¶13

K.K.PATHY P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

¶14

SAKTHIVEL, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN CONSUMER NO.5298, RESIDING AT K.K.CHALLA

¶15

K.K.PATHY P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU

¶17

RESPONDENTS:

¶18

K.S.E.B. REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, NATTUKAL, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶19

THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶20

BY SRI. P.V. ELIAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

¶21

SRI. SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL, SC, KSEB

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 9982 of 2008 (L)

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 6059/2000 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 20.01.2006.

¶28

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 5645/2000 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 02.06.2006.

¶29

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 03.03.2008.

¶30

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 21.02.2008.

¶31

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 16.02.2008.

¶32

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 09.07.2007.

¶33

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.02.2008.

¶34

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.02.2008.

¶35

EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL OF THE 3RD PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.01.2008.

¶36

EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL OF THE 4TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.01.2008.

¶37

EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO. 11599/2007 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 03.04.2007.

¶38

EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO. 7607/2008 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 06.03.2008.

¶39

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.P. RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 9982 of 2008

¶45

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

¶46

Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2012.

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB, Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal.

¶49

The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

¶50

Call for the records leading to the issue of Exts.P7 to P10 bills by the first respondent and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶51

Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to inspect the extent of holding and grant exemption following the procedure laid down in Ammini Gopalakrishnan's case.

¶52

Declare that the petitioners being paddy cultivators are entitled to exemption from payment of electricity charges for their agricultural connections as per the Government orders in vogue.

¶53

Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith restore the electricity supply to the petitioners in case any of the connections are snapped overlooking the exemption.

¶54

The petitioners are agriculturists who have been granted separate connections by the K.S.E.B at concessional tariff. They are eligible for exemption from payment of electricity charges for power connection by virtue of G.O.(MS) No.311/95/AD dated 31.08.1995 as modified by G.O(MS) No.

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 27313/2009 : 2:

¶56

30/99/AD dated 04.02.1999. The petitioners claim that since they are using the electric connection for agricultural purpose, they are entitled to exemption.

¶57

In the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, it is categorically stated that petitioners 1 to 4 have applied for exemption on 26.04.2007, 04.05.2007, 11.04.2007 and 17.04.2008 respectively and that since the petitioners are agriculturists, they are eligible for exemption from the date of filing the application. It is also stated that the petitioners are enjoying the facilities since the date of their applications and they are not eligible for exemption for the prior dates. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision reported in Ammini Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala - 2002(3) KLT 553 in which it is held as follows:

¶58

“The petitioners will approach the local Agricultural Officer, who will visit the farm of the petitioners and conduct an investigation and shall certify the petitioners' eligibility within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be produced by the petitioners. Since the Electricity Board is interested in the matter, they are free to coordinate in the matter with the Agricultural Officer and can be a party to the proceedings of the Agricultural Officer. If the Agricultural Officer finds that any claimant was ineligible for the exemption, and wrongly claimed the same, it is for the Electricity Board to demand power charges for back periods also, subject to Rules. On the other hand, if farmers with exclusive agricultural connections are found eligible, then of course the Board cannot collect the arrears as well ever since the notification came into force merely because they were not

¶59

W.P.(C) No. 27313/2009

¶60

: 3:

¶61

registered by the Agricultural Offier or their applications not forwarded to K.S.E.B before 20.05.2001. The petitioners will be allowed to participate in measuring the land and if any petitioner is found ineligible, then the Agricultural Officer will issue notice, hear the petitioners and pass orders. Thereafter, the K.S.E.B is free to raise bills on such agriculturists. In view of the findings above, I declare that any agriculturist who has not availed of exemption is also free to get the benefit of notification, provided he satisfies the conditions, as explained above.”

¶62

In that view of the authoritative pronouncement, I am

¶63

of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to exemption from payment of electricity dues from the date of effecting electricity connection. I hold so. Consequential orders shall be passed by the 1^st respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶64

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶65

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶66

¶67

W.P.(C) No. 27313/2009

¶68

: 4:

¶69

B.P. RAY, J.

¶70