Remanded

Fr.Mathew Vaniyapurackal,Manager,Kottaya v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC15 Dec 2014WP(C)/16921/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court stayed recovery of electricity arrears assessed under a higher tariff category (VII A) pending the outcome of related proceedings before the Supreme Court, directing settlement of regular bills under the applicable tariff.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of alleged arrears to be kept in abeyance subject to the outcome of pending appeals before the Apex Court.

Fr.Mathew Vaniyapurackal,Manager,Kottaya Vs State of… — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 16921 of 2010 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

FR.MATHEW VANIYAPURACKAL, MANAGER, ST.ANTONY'S PUBLIC SCHOOL, ANAKKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB,

¶16

ELECTRICAL SECTION, KANJIRAPALLY.

¶17

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA

¶18

R2 & R3 BY SRI.T.R.RAJAN, SC

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶20

15-12-2014, ALONG WITH WPC. 19969/2010, THE COURT ON

¶21

THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

msv/

¶23

WP(C).No. 16921 of 2010 (M)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶26

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

¶27

EXT. P1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 2.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KSEB. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.5.2010 ALONG WITH RE-ASSESSMENT BILL DATED NIL.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶34

========================

¶35

W.P.(C). Nos. 16921, 19969 of 2010, 7046 of 2011 and 15777 of 2011

¶36

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 15th day of December, 2014

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The main grievance of the petitioners as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps for realization of the alleged arrears, wrongly treating the tariff applicable to the petitioners' institution under the 'category VII A', in place of the present categorization under 'VI A'. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners' institutions have been assessed under Tariff VI A till March, 2010. Later demand was raised in respect of the alleged arrears issuing reassessment bills under Category VII A which hence is under challenge in these writ petitions.

¶39

Heard the learned Standing Counsel as well the learned Government Pleader.

¶40

During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, the challenge against re-categorization under almost similar circumstances was originally considered by a Division Bench of this Court and judgment was passed in favour

¶41

W.P.C. No.16921/10 & conn. cases -2-

¶42

of the consumers, as per the decision rendered in Bro. Joseph Antony v. K.S.E.B (2009 (3) KLT 1022). It is further stated that the issue is now pending consideration before the Apex Court in various SLPs filed by the respondent Board. Referring to the course and events, various other writ petitions came to be disposed of, directing the respondents to keep the recovery of arrears in abeyance, subject to satisfaction of regular bills under LT VII A category.

¶43

In the above circumstance, this Court finds that, the petitioners are also entitled to have similar extent of relief. Recovery steps in respect of arrears shall be kept in abeyance and it shall be subject to the outcome of the issue pending consideration before the Apex Court. Satisfaction of the regular bills shall be effected under LT VII A tariff for the time being and it shall be subject to the orders to be passed as aforesaid.

¶44

The writ petitions are disposed of. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.

¶45

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶46

kp/-

Fr.Mathew Vaniyapurackal,Manager,Kottaya v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fr.Mathew Vaniyapurackal,Manager,Kottaya v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reeja Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

All Kerala Bus Operators Organization Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Abida Rashid Vs Bank of India

Mr.Biju T. Vs State Bank of India

Excel Timbers Pvt.Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of It

Paulson Ipe Vs District Collector.