Dismissed

The Kerala State Electricity Board v. the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum

Kerala HC23 May 2014WP(C)/12982/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by KSEB challenging an order that allowed a consumer to get additional power load sanctioned without immediate payment of transmission development charges. The court held the demand unsustainable pending final resolution of a Division Bench issue, reserving liberty to KSEB to recover the amount if later leviable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to Board to realize charges if Division Bench decides them leviable.

The Kerala State Electricity Board Vs the Consumer… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2014/2ND JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 12982 of 2014 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION) VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶8

2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE) THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶9

3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN,SC,K.S.E.B.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL REGION, POWER HOUSE, KOCHI, PIN 682018 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.

¶13

2. SRI.JOHN KACHAPILLY, SAKTHI ROCK PRODUCTS, MATTOOR, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683574.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 12982 of 2014 (W)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CGRF-CR/COMP.128/2013-14 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶19

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS DATED 24.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN CGRF-CR/COMP.128/201314

¶20

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER IN CGRF-CR/COMP.128/2013-14

¶21

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/2/2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CGRF-CR/COMP.128/2013-14

¶22

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/7/2013 OF A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1042/2013.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶28

W.P.(C). No. 12982 of 2014

¶29

--------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2014

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) is challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent herein had approached the 1^st respondent in a complaint against the demand for remittance of the proportionate cost on transmission charges with respect to the additional load applied by him. The 1^st respondent in Ext.P4 order found that, the demand is unsustainable and directed that, portion of the demand issued towards transmission development charges is invalid and directed to revise the demand accordingly. It was also directed to allow the additional power load applied for by the 2^nd respondent within a time limit stipulated in the Supply Code 2005.

¶32

Question regarding sustainability of demand for proportionate cost on transmission development charges,

¶33

was subjected to dispute before this court. In the judgment in WP(C) No.18726/2011 and connected cases,

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 12982 of 2014

¶35

-2-

¶36

dated 22.11.2012, this court found that the demand cannot be sustained. This writ petition is filed on the premise that Writ Appeals (W.A. No.1042/2013 & connected cases) filed against the above said judgment are pending disposal. But this court is of the opinion that unless the legal position is reversed, the demand raised cannot be sustained. At the same time if the issue is ultimately settled in favour of the Board then the 2^nd respondent will be liable to make payment of the amount.

¶37

Under the above mentioned circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity with the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent is entitled to get the additional load sanctioned without payment of proportionate cost on the transmission development charges. However, it is made clear that the Board will be at liberty to realise such amounts if it is ultimately found that the consumer is liable.

¶38

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner Board to realise the proportionate cost on transmission charges, if it is

¶39

W.P.(C). No. 12982 of 2014

¶40

-3-

¶41

ultimately decided by the Division Bench of this court that such charges are leviable from the consumer.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶44

/true copy/

¶45

P. A. to Judge

¶46

The Kerala State Electricity Board v. the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kerala State Electricity Board v. the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiju Vs Dr K P Sreekumar

Justin K.J Vs Smijesh V.M

Daisy Cherian Vs District Collector

G.Gopalaikrishna Pillai Vs K.S.R.T.C.

Joy Ouseph Vs the Asst. Executive Engineer

Rajan Sheriff I Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation