Disposed

Mar Ivanios Industrial Training Centre v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC12 Nov 2014WP(C)/25540/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging a new electricity tariff structure for self-financing educational institutions by referring to a prior Division Bench judgment that stayed arrears recovery pending Supreme Court intervention.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the judgment in W.A. No. 660/2010 regarding stay of arrears recovery.

Mar Ivanios Industrial Training Centre Vs the Kerala… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/21ST KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 25540 of 2014 (N) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

MAR IVANIOS INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE, MOONNUKALLU, SEETHATHODU, KUMARAMPEROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR FR. JOSE KALAVILA.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.M.S.KIRAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001, RPERESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINER,

¶14

ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VADASSERIKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA – 690 505.

¶15

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

¶16

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KAKKAD, SEETHATHODU, CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 667.

¶17

4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KAKKAD, SEETHATHODU, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 667.

¶18

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

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

rvs.

¶21

WP(C).No. 25540 of 2014 (N)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

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

¶25

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF TH CONSUMER DISPUTES	E AWARD DATED 19-03-2010 OF THE REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE OF RS 1,63,449/-.	BILL DATED 23-11-2010 FOR AN AMOUNT
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE	REPRESENTATION DATED 08-12-2010.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH	BILL DATED 07-12-2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE	COMPLAINT NO 2129/2010 FILED BY THE
	PETITIONER BEFO THIRUVANANTHAPURA	RE THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, M.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT BEFO THIRUVANANTHAPURA	WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RE THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, M.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT BEFORE	DETAILED BILL SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND THE LOK AYUKTA.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF OR KERALA LOK AYUKTA	DER DATED 13-05-2014 ISSUED BY THE IN COMPLAINT NO 2129/2010.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE THE TARIFF AND SUPPLY BY KSEB WI THE KERALA STATE	RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SCHEDULE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR RETAIL TH EFFECT FROM 01-12-2007 ISSUED BY ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE W.A NO 660/20 NO. 33893/2008)	SAID JUDGMENT DATED 23-03-2012 IN 10 (AGAINST JUDGEMENT IN WPC

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : ----------------------NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

P.R.RAMACHANDRAMENON, J.

¶31

W.P.(C).No.25540 OF 2014

¶32

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2014

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶35

The petitioner is the Director of a self financing educational institution namely, Mar Ivanious Industrial Training Centre, Pathanamthitta. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the new tariff structure to the extent it classifies educational institutions into Government, Aided, Private Educational Institutions (LT VI A) and Self Financing Educational Institutions (LT VII A Commercial). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Exts.P2 and P4 bills issued on the basis of the new tariff structure and Ext.P8 award passed by the Kerala Lok Ayuktha, without considering the recent judgments by this Court in similar matters, are liable to be quashed.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Ext.P10 judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in an identical case in Writ Appeal No. 660/2010 wherein, this

¶38

W.P.(C) No.25540/2014

¶39

¶40

Court held that the respondents are authorised to collect tariff in terms of the order of the Regulatory Commission, but the same will be subject to the result of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the batch of SLPs pending before it. It was also directed that no arrears will be recovered until the Supreme Court decides the matter and thereafter recovery of arrears will be based on judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶41

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms of Ext.P10 judgment.

¶42

Sd/P.R.RAMACHANDRAMENON, JUDGE.

¶43

ps/14/11/2014

Mar Ivanios Industrial Training Centre v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mar Ivanios Industrial Training Centre v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

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

K.K.Jayajith Vs Dr.Saji Basheer

Abdul Azeez Shareerkutty Vs Union of India

Josemel Boy Vs the Chief Manager

Vasantha Venugopal Vs the Tahsildar

M/S. Reliance Security Agency Vs Vijaya Bank

B.R.Santhosh Kumar Vs State Bank of India