Disposed

V.M. Nazar v. Assistant Engineer

Kerala HC3 Jun 2014WP(C)/14021/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding disputed electricity tariff assessments, the Court held that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum cannot deny a complaint without passing orders. The Forum must decide maintainability and, if maintained, consider interim relief within two weeks. Recovery of disputed amounts was stayed for three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd respondent to entertain complaint, decide maintainability and interim relief within 2 weeks; recovery of disputed amounts stayed for 3 weeks.

V.M. Nazar Vs Assistant Engineer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2014/13TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 14021 of 2014 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M/S.FIFA INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER V.M.NAZAR AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE PAREEKANNI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY SMT.A.SEENA

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION NO.II KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

¶11

KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 684 336

¶12

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (APTS), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

¶13

VAZHATHOPPU, IDUKKI, PIN - 684 339.

¶14

3. THE CHAIRMAN, CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CENTRAL REGION POWER HOUSE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 018.

¶15

4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM,

¶16

KOCHI, PIN-682 018.

¶17

5. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶18

R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB, SC

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

...2/-

¶22

WP(C).No. 14021 of 2014 (C)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶25

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE INVOICE, SIX IN NUMBERS, OF THE PREVIOUS SIX MONTHS. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE MAHAZAR GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER . EXT.P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.5.2014. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL BILL DATED 7.5.2014. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE FINAL BILL 8.5.2014. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶31

W.P.(c) No. 14021 OF 2014-C

¶32

DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF JUNE, 2014.

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Pursuant to an inspection conducted at the premises of the industry run by the petitioner wherein the electric connection was provided under LT IV tariff, the 1^st respondent had issued Ext.P3 notice and Exts.P4 & P5 bills, making a back assessment on the premise that petitioner ought to have been charged under LT VIIA tariff. Aggrieved by Exts.P3, P4 & P5 the petitioner submitted a complaint before the 3^rd respondent, as evident from Ext.P6. But it is stated that the 3^rd respondent had refused to entertain the complaint on the basis that the impugned bill is one related to unauthorised consumption coming within the purview of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶35

On a prima facie consideration of Exts.P3, P4 & P5 it is evident that what is demanded is only the difference between the tariffs on the premise that the petitioner ought to have been charged under LT VIIA for the period mentioned therein. Therefore it is evident that there is no imposition of penalty

¶36

W.P.(c) No.14021/2014

¶37

-2-

¶38

under Section 126 alleging any misuse or unauthorised usage of electricity.

¶39

However, the 3^rd respondent cannot deny acceptance of a complaint without passing any orders. It is duty bound on the 3^rd respondent to entertain any complaint filed after complying the requisite formalities and to decide the question regarding its maintainability. If the 3^rd respondent is of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable before that authority, he could reject the same by passing an appropriate order mentioning the reasons for non-maintainability of the complaint.

¶40

The petitioner had filed this writ petition alleging that Ext.P6 complaint was not entertained by the 3^rd respondent and the respondents 1 & 2 are proceeding with coercive steps for recovery of the amounts covered under the impugned bills. It is stated that, along with the complaint the petitioner had also sought for an interim relief of staying the collection of the amount under demand, till the disposal of the complaint by the 3^rd respondent. Therefore it is only just and proper to direct the 3^rd respondent to entertain the complaint and to take a decision regarding maintainability of the same and also to take a decision

¶41

W.P.(c) No.14021/2014

¶42

-3-

¶43

with respect to granting of interim relief, if the complaint is maintainable.

¶44

Hence this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P6 complaint, if presented by the petitioner, and to pass appropriate orders thereon on the question of maintainability, taking note of the observations contained herein above. If the 3^rd respondent is of the opinion that the complaint is maintainable, he shall consider the question of granting interim relief. Necessary orders in this regard shall be issued within 2 weeks from the date of presentation of Ext.P6 complaint.

¶45

In order to facilitate the petitioner to seek relief before the 3^rd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Exts.P3 & P5 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 3 weeks from today.

¶46

Sd/- JUDGE.

¶47

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,

¶48

AMG

¶49

True copy

¶50

P.A to Judge

V.M. Nazar v. Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M. Nazar v. Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joby.K.George Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Sud Chemic India (P) Ltd. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.R.Gidesh Vs K.S.E.B.

Sukumaran C.N Vs Muhammed Safoorullah

Muhammed.T.P Vs Asst Executive Engineer

T.Y.Cleatus Vs K.S.R.T.C. & Others