Remanded

Muneer.K v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC6 Nov 2014WP(C)/28253/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court held that an appellate order passed by a respondent official who was not independent is set aside, directing the appeal to be forwarded to a newly notified competent authority for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the appeal is directed to be forwarded to the competent authority for fresh consideration within two months; coercive proceedings are kept in abeyance if 50% of disput

Muneer.K Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/15TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 28253 of 2014 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MUNEER.K, PROPRIETOR, NEW MARWA BOARD WORKS, CONSUMER NO.12695, MDF WOOD AND FURNITURE, TIRUR

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUDHIBHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-695505.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION, CHATTPPARAMBU, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHATTPPARAMBU, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101.

¶13

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

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 28253 of 2014 (F)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASSAR PREPARED BY SUB ENGINEER DATED 18/3/14

¶20

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY R3 TO PETITIONER

¶21

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL BILL ISSUED BY R3 TO PETITIONER

¶22

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT OF PENAL BILL ISSUED BY R3

¶23

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE MACHINES DATED 14/3/14 ISSUED BY THE PROPRIETOR OF ELECTRO COMBINES, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING WORKS, MALAPPURAM

¶24

P6: TRUE CPY OF THE BILL DATED 24/2/14 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY SIRAJ ELECTSRICALS FOR THE PURCHASE OF 1 HP PUMP SET.

¶25

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26/3/13 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY R3

¶26

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT BILL DATED 26/3/14 ISSUED TO PETITIONER

¶27

P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPEAL BY R2 IN 300/GB/APPEAL 12695 CHATTIPPARAMBU/2015 DATED 1/10/14

¶28

P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.24714/12 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 7/7/14

¶29

P11: TRUE COPY OF THE DISCONNECTION NOTICE ISSUED TO BY THE R3 DATED 10/10/14

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶36

W.P.(C)No.28253 OF 2014

¶37

Dated this the 6^th November, 2014

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Pursuant to the inspection conducted by the A.P.T.S. team

¶40

in the premises of the petitioner on 18.03.2014, the petitioner

¶41

was served with Ext. P3 provisional assessment order and Ext.P4 demand. After considering the objection of the petitioner, the proceedings were finalised as per Ext.P7 final order and Ext.P8 bill was issued in this regard. The petitioner challenged the same by filing appeal before the second respondent/Dy. Chief Engineer, who dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P9 order dated 01.10.2014. The contention of the petitioner is that the

¶42

said proceedings are bad, in view of the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P10 judgment dated 07.07.2014 in W.P.(C) 24714 of 2012, holding that the appellate authority to be notified by the State Government, in terms of the relevant provisions of law, shall be a person, who is not connected with the affairs of the Board/licencee.

¶43

Heard the learned Standing Counsel as well.

¶44

During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice

¶45

of this Court that the State Government has already notified an independent authority to function as appellate authority as per

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C)No.28253 OF 2014

¶48

the Gazette Notification dated 15.10.2014, a copy of which is placed for consideration of this Court.

¶49

In the said circumstance, the second respondent/Deputy Chief Engineer is hereby directed to forward the appeal preferred by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of Ext.P9 to the competent authority for fresh consideration. On receipt of the appeal, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the competent authority, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time, if the petitioner has already satisfied 50% of the disputed liability in terms of Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Ext.P9 order, having been passed by an authority, who was not actually having the power or competence, in view of law declared by this Court as per Ext.P10 judgment, will stand set aside.

¶50

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶51

Muneer.K v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muneer.K 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chellamma Gandhi Vs Sri.T.Bhaskaran

Zibitt Software Technologies Pvt.Ltd Vs Issac K.Thayyil

Vilasini Vs K.a.Francis

Kiraj Jose Vs State Bank of Travancore

Reghunathan Nair Vs the Authorised Officer

Jose Thomas Vs Kerala Financial Corporation