Petitioner challenged a bill and order regarding penal charges and reassessment of electricity consumption. The Court held that technical details and disputed questions of fact regarding meter readings could not be revisited under Article 226. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit in challenging the authority order.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2012/3RD SRAVANA 1934
WP(C).No. 3950 of 2006 (T)
PETITIONER:
ALIMOIDEEN, S/O.KHADER HAJI, MALABAR MANZIL, P./O. KANNAMANGLAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR.
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APTS), K.S.E.B, KOZHIKODE, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B., VENGARA.
BY SRI. SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE,
ADVS. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA, S.C, SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, S.C.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).NO.3950/2006-T:
J U D G M E N T
None appears. Dismissed for non-prosecution.
25/07/2012.
SD/- B.P.RAY, JUDGE.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
============= W.P. (C) No. 3950 of 2006
===================
Dated this, the 9th day of November, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8. Ext.P7 is an order passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Kozhikode on 18/1/2006 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was substantially allowed by issuing the following order;
“It is evidently proved that at Anti Power Theft Squad inspection time, power meter was not recording consumption of R phase of power meter resulting in 1/3 recording omission. The unrecorded energy will be 50% of the recorded consumption. The consumer will be reassessed at normal rate only for past 6 months prior to inspection instead of the period taken from the previous Anti Power Theft Squad inspection on 4.12.2003. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vengara will revise the additional bill accordingly and realize the balance amount after adjusting the initial amount paid on filing of appeal. Appeal pending on subsequent Anti Power Theft Squad inspection will be dealt with separately. The appeal dated 15.12.2004 is disposed of as above.”
W.P(C) No.3950/06
-:2:-
W.P(C) No.3950/06
-:3:-
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is hence dismissed.
Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Rp
9/11/2015
//True Copy//
P.S to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to reconsider factual and technical aspects of an order passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer regarding penal bills and meter readings.
Whether the claim for dismissal of the appeal and reassessment of unrecorded energy at normal rate for a specific period by the Anti Power Theft Squad is open to judicial review.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the quantum and methodology of the additional bill based on disputed questions of fact and technical details of meter readings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ALIMOIDEEN
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
B.P.RAY
A.M.SHAFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
