Disposed

T.R.Vijayan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC18 Nov 2014WP(C)/29078/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging demand notices for unpaid electricity bills, the High Court directed the Deputy Chief Engineer to consider the petitioner's application and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. The court also kept coercive proceedings in abeyance pending the determination of liability. Coercive proceedings were kept in abeyance until the Board quantifies and informs the petit

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider Ext.P1 after opportunity of hearing within six weeks; kept coercive proceedings in abeyance pending admission of six-months liability; petitioner to satisfy a

T.R.Vijayan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — 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

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/27TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No.29078 of 2014 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.R.VIJAYAN,S/O.RAGHAVAN,THATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOORKANIKKARA,THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, VAIDHUDHI BHAVAN,PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶11

2. THE CHAIRMAN,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHUDHI BHAVAN,PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CIRCLE OFFICE,VAIDHUDHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 020.

¶13

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,EAST DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHUDHI BHAVAN,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 020.

¶14

5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION, NADATHARA,NADATHARA P.O.,THRISSUR - 680 751.

¶15

6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), OFFICE THE REVENUE RECOVERY,THRISSUR P.O. THRISSUR - 680 020.

¶16

R1 TO R5 BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.FAZIL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No.29078 of 2014 (H)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 DT. 20.12.2010.

¶23

EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DT. 25.04.2014.

¶24

EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 17.03.2014.

¶25

EXT.P4:TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DT. 07.08.2014.

¶26

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 29078 of 2014

¶34

¶35

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2014

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶38

prayers:

¶39

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records leading to Exts. P2 and P4 and quash the same.

¶40

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders.”

¶41

The specific case projected by the petitioner is that, the industrial unit of the petitioner which was having a Low Tension electric connection was closed down in July, 2008 because of heavy loss and the power supply was disconnected by the Board due to the non payment of the electric charges. The petitioner was required to satisfy a sum of 97,860/- for the period from₹ July 2008 to 27.11.2010, where upon the petitioner submitted Exts. P1 and P3 applications rebutting the liability to satisfy the said extent of amount. It is contended that, by virtue of the mandate under Rule 41(4) of the Kerala State Electricity Board

¶42

W.P.C. No. 29078 of 2014 -2-

¶43

Terms and Conditions of Supply, it is the duty of the Board to dismantle the electric connection after six months' of disconnection. In spite of the fact that the power supply was disconnected in July, 2008, it took more than two years for the respondent Board to have it dismantled on 27.11.2010. This being the position, the petitioner is liable to pay the fixed electricity charge for six months from July, 2008.

¶44

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board as well, who seeks for further time to file a statement as to the factual particulars, since Exts. P1 and P3 are pending consideration before the concerned authorities.

¶45

After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time, on condition that the petitioner satisfies the admitted liability for the period of six months', to be

¶46

W.P.C. No. 29078 of 2014 -3-

¶47

quantified and let known to the petitioner within 'one week' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It shall be for the petitioner to satisfy the same within one week thereafter. Balance liability shall be subject to the outcome of the order to be passed by the third respondent on Ext.P1.

¶48

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along

¶49

with a copy of the writ petition before the third respondent for

¶50

further steps.

¶51

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶52

kp/-

T.R.Vijayan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R.Vijayan v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh S Vs T.O.Sooraj

M.a.Abdul Naseer Vs S.Rajamanikyam

Subhadramma Vs Authorised Officer

Abdul Rasheed Vs District Collector

Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Commissioner

M/S. Reliant Marketing Vs Commercial Tax Officer