Remanded

P.v.Krishnakumar v. K.S.E.B.

Kerala HC15 Feb 2013WP(C)/11144/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash electricity disconnection notices. Court held appeal not heard on merits, set aside order dismissing appeal, and remitted matter to appellate authority for reconsideration conditional on further deposit of Rs.1.5 lakhs within one month. Writ petition disposed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dismissing the appeal; remitted matter to appellate authority for reconsideration subject to deposit of Rs. 1.5 lakhs within one month.

P.v.Krishnakumar Vs K.S.E.B. — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/26TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 11144 of 2008 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.V.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O. P.K.VELUNNI, PORUVAYIL HOUSE, CHITTADY POST, VANDAZHI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDUTHY BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APTS, PALAKKAD.

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

¶14

K.S.E.B, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD.

¶15

5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.B, ALATHUR.

¶16

6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),

¶17

ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶18

R1 TO R5 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,S.C.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Prv.

¶21

W.P.(C). NO.11144/2008-B:

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE CONNECTED LOAD POWER AND LIGHT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT HAVING CONSUMER NO.5431.

¶25

EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE CONNECTED LOAD POWER AND LIGHT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT HAVING CONSUMER NO.3953.

¶26

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR ISSUED BY THE R3. DTD. 04/03/2005. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE PENAL BILL DTD. 05/03/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 10/03/2005.

¶27

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 04/04/2005 IN W.P.(C).NO.10948/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶28

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE SAID OBJECTIONS DTD. 18/04/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE R.3. BY THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 22/03/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R.6.

¶30

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/05/2005 ISSUED BY THE ASST. ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, VADAKKENCHERY, NAMELY 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/07/2009 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, APTS, KOZHIKODE.

¶32

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 31/03/2012 IN SC.NO.863/2010 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS, PALAKKAD DIVISION.

¶33

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

¶34

ANNEXURE R1.A: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DB11/05-06/01/6-5-2005. ANNEXURE R1.B: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, APTS, KOZHIKODE DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Prv.

B.P.RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.11144 OF 2008

¶40

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2013

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

Petitioner was conducting a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacturing of batteries. Consequent to an inspection conducted by the fourth respondent in the petitioner’s unit, Ext.P2(a) demand notice demanding a sum of Rs.7,87,184/- was issued and also disconnected the electric connection. Against Ext.P2(a) petitioner approached this court and this court directed the fourth respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner and directed remittance of two installments as condition for restoration of electricity connection and restrained from coercive recovery proceedings. But in the meanwhile, the unit itself was taken over by the Industrial Department and due to acute financial stringency, the petitioner could not remit the amount. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P5 objection had never been considered by the fourth respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice is liable to be quashed, since it is illegal in the light of the direction contained in Ext.P4 judgment.

¶43

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as the petitioner had not remitted the amounts directed by the court in time and therefore the reconnection could not be effected.

¶44

W.P.(C)No.11144 OF 2008

¶45

:: Page numbers ::

¶46

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.2,15,004/- on 9-4-2008. Therefore, it is prayed that a direction may be issued to quash Exts.P7 and P8.

¶47

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it seems to me that the appeal was not heard on merits. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P8 order dated 8-7-2009 passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Kozhikode and remit the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration in accordance with law subject to condition that the petitioner shall deposit a further sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs within one month from today. This payment shall be made without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised by the parties. The appeal shall be disposed of by the appellate authority within three months from the date of deposit of the amount.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

¶49

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶50

jes

P.v.Krishnakumar v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Krishnakumar v. K.S.E.B.

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

Leena Vs the State of Kerala

Gopinadhan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Nehru College of Engineering Vs State of Kerala

M.Rohini Vs the Labour Court, Kannur

Gurudeva Rice & Agro Products Vs State of Kerala

O.v.Chellama Vs M.G.University