Disposed

Raju.M.Micheal v. the Chief Engineer (Electricity Distribution)

Kerala HC17 Jan 2013WP(C)/1133/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order disposing of a Writ Petition regarding pole charge disputes. Court held that the agreements contained an arbitration clause referring disputes to the Chief Engineer, making this forum inappropriate as an alternate remedy was directed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file representation to Third Respondent within two weeks; Third Respondent to refer dispute to Chief Engineer.

Raju.M.Micheal Vs the Chief Engineer… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/27TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1133 of 2013 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RAJU.M.MICHEAL

¶8

S/O.VARGHESE MICHEAL, MANJADIYIL HOUSE,

¶9

CHOKKAD P.O., NILAMBUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶10

TERANCE DILSON. K., AGED 38 YEARS

¶11

S/O.GEORGE, NEENA BHAVAN, PAYAMPADAM

¶12

POOKOTTUMPADAM

¶13

NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶15

SMT.SMITHA BABU

¶16

RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD NORTH CIRCLE KOZHIKODE PIN 673 001

¶18

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICTY) ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶19

MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 676 121

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶21

NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 679329

¶22

R BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.1133 OF 2013

¶25

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1-12-2006 AS NO DB31/CTV/9/06-07 IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.

¶27

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RODER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21-11-2006 AS NO DB31/CTV/8/06-07 IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 1-12-2006 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIOENR AND THE ERD RESPONDENTS

¶29

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREE,MENT DATED 28-11-2006 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER DT 2-07-2001

¶31

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE FIRST PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 23-10-2001

¶32

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT DATED 14-12-2012 AS NO DB31/CABLE TV/2012-13/1531 TO THE 1^ST PETITIONER.

¶33

EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14-12-2012 AS NO DB 31/CABLE TV 201213/1530 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶34

//TRUE COPY//

¶35

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶36

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 1133 of 2013

¶38

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2013

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

Exts.P3 and P4 are the agreements entered into by petitioners 1 and 2 respectively with the third respondent as regards drawing of optic fibre cables along electricity posts. Clause 9 of the agreements is to the following effect:

¶41

“In case of any difference or dispute relating to or arising out of this agreement, the same shall be referred to the concerned Chief Engineer for decision and the decision there of will be final and binding on the parties.”

¶42

The dispute in the instant case is with respect to Exts.P7 and P8 bills issued by the third respondent demanding hike in pole charges during the period from 23.10.2006 to 31.3.2011.

¶43

The disputes involves adjudication of many factual issues apart from the interpretation of the various terms and conditions of Exts.P3 and P4 agreements. I deem it fit to relegate the petitioners to the alternate remedy afore-quoted by filing appropriate representation to the third respondent for reference of the dispute to the Chief Engineer (Distribution).

¶44

W.P.(C) No.1133 of 2013

¶45

¶46

The petitioners are at liberty to file separate representations to the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this judgment. The third respondent shall on receipt of the representation refer the dispute to the Chief Engineer (Distribution) within two weeks therefrom. The Chief Engineer (Distribution) shall take a final decision within months therefrom and the optic fibre cables drawn by the petitioners shall not be dismantled in the mean while.

¶47

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶48

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶49

nj.

¶50

W.P.(C) No.1133 of 2013

¶51

Raju.M.Micheal v. the Chief Engineer (Electricity Distribution)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju.M.Micheal v. the Chief Engineer (Electricity Distribution)

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

P.Prasanna Kumari Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

M.P.Sivan Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

P.Komalavally Vs Sri.Elangovan, IAS

Sudha Vs United India Insurance Co.

Kaderkutty C @ Abdulkadher Vs United India Insurance Company

Smijith Vs Kerala State Electricity Board