Dismissed

K.T.Abdul Latheef v. the Executive Engineer and Others

Kerala HC21 May 2014WP(C)/15825/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a recalculation of electricity arrears which was issued in accordance with a prior order. Despite the bill being in line with the order, the petitioner's complaint was not accepted. The court dismissed the petition but allowed payment of the arrears in equal monthly instalments without interest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to remit the demanded electricity charges in 3 equal monthly instalments without paying any interest.

K.T.Abdul Latheef Vs the Executive Engineer and Others — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2014/31ST VAISAKHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 15825 of 2011 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

K.T.ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O BEERANKUTTY HAJI, PROPRIETOR MALABAR CLINIC VALAYAM, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.FIROZ

¶10

SMT.M.SHAJNA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY, BOARD VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673101.

¶14

2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, PARAKKADAVU KOZHIKODE - 673102.

¶15

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, NADAPURAM KALLACHI, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673101

¶16

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION KSEB, PARAKKADAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673102

¶17

5. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶18

6. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL

¶19

FORUM(CGRF), NORTHERN REGION KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, GANDHI ROAD KOZHIKODE- 673001

¶20

R1 TO R6 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA-KSEB BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 15825 of 2011 (C)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶26

P1: COPY OF THE BILL DT 21/5/2011

¶27

P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT 2/1998 TO 04/2003 P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DT 7/1/2011 IN OP NO. 37/2010-11. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLIANT DT 8/6/2011.

¶28

P5: COPY OF ORDER DT 25/6/2010 OF THE R1.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

¶30

EXT.R1(A):	COPY OF THE LETTER DT 3/3/2011.
EXT.R1(B):	COPY OF THE LETTER DT 18/3/2011 ALO DETAILS.	NG WITH THE CALCULATION
EXT.R1(C):	COPY OF THE ORDER DT 6/5/2011.
EXT.R1(D):	COPY OF THE LETTER DT 30/5/2011.
EXT.R1(E):	COPY OF THE LETTER DT 9/6/2011.
		//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

------------------------------WP(C).NO. 15825 of 2011

¶35

Dated this the 21st day of May , 2014

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

`The petitioner had approached the 6^th respondent in a complaint against the demand for arrears of electricity charges for the period from 2/1998 to 4/2003. The arrear bill was issued on the premise that the Meter was remaining faulty for the said period. An amount of Rs. 46,155/- along with interest was demanded. Before approaching the 6^th respondent the said bill was challenged in a writ petition filed before this court as OP.No.39022/2004. This court directed the 1^st respondent to consider the grievance and to pass appropriate orders. But the 1^st respondent had issued an order only on 25.6.2010, that too to remit an amount of Rs.62,801/-, with interest. Complaining that the 1^st respondent has not considered the grievance voiced and that he has not applied mind in taking such a decision, the 6^th respondent was approached. In Ext.P3 order the 6^th respondent found that the Electric Meter connected to the premise was

¶38

WP(C).15825 /2011

¶39

¶40

remaining faulty from 10/1997 to 11/1998. The replaced meter was again changed on 7.3.2003. It was further found that the average consumption for the period from 10/1999 to 12/2000 indicated 177.33 units per month. Therefore the 6^th respondent ordered to recalculate the amount at 175 units per month from February 1998 to April 2003, with interest. Ext. P1 is the consequential demand issued which was accompanied by Ext. P2 calculation statement . Alleging that Exts. P1 and P2 are not in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P3 order, the petitioner again approached the 6^th respondent in Ext. P4 complaint. Since the 6^th respondent has not accepted and registered, the complaint this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate direction

¶41

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is contended that Ext.P1 was issued strictly in accordance with the direction contained in Ext.P3 order. It is stated that Ext.P1 was issued only after getting approval from the Accounts Officer (Law) of the KSEB. Ext.R1(b) is the copy of the letter forwarded by the Assistant Executive Engineer

¶42

WP(C).15825 /2011

¶43

¶44

concerned to the Accounts Officer (Law) KSEB. It indicates that the 3^rd respondent had forwarded various statements calculating the amount in different manner. The 3^rd statement forwarded to the Accounts Officer contains calculation in accordance with Ext.P3 order, done for 175 units per month without interest. The 3^rd statement appended along with Ext.R1(b) indicates that the charges for the period from 2/1998 to 4/2003 is calculated at 175 units per month and 350 units bi-monthly for certain periods. It is mentioned that the amounts already remitted were given credit. The said statement exactly tallies with the calculation statement appended along with Ext.P1, which is produced as Ext.P2. On a perusal of Ext.P2 as well as the statement appended along with Ext.R1(b) it is revealed that the demand is made calculating the charges strictly in accordance with the direction contained in Ext.P3. Therefore the grievance voiced against Ext.P1 does not deserve merit. That being the position Ext. P4 deserves no consideration by the 6^th respondent. Since Ext.P3 had attained finality the petitioner is liable to pay the amount demanded under Ext.P1.

¶45

WP(C).15825 /2011

¶46

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that all along there was stay against collection of the amount, during the pendency of the writ petition. Hence it is prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to remit the amount covered under Ext.P1 in instalments, without paying any interest. Considering the fact that the dispute was pending adjudication before this

¶48

court, I am inclined to grant such a relief.

¶49

Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is allowed to make the payment of the amounts covered under Ext.P1 demand in 3 equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.5.2014 and on or before the last day of the 2 succeeding months.

¶50

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶51

pmn/

¶52

WP(C).15825 /2011 5

¶53

WP(C).15825 /2011 6

K.T.Abdul Latheef v. the Executive Engineer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Abdul Latheef v. the Executive Engineer and Others

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.B.Dileepkumar Vs Radhakrishnan

K.Bhaskaran Vs the Secretary, Thalassery Municipality

The Indian National Anganwady Employees Federation Vs Union of India

C. Mohanan Vs Sri. K.G. Mohanlal

M.A. Abdul Azeez Vs Mohandas

K.Chithrakumari Vs State of Kerala