Disposed

Sidharthan K.K. v. Thrissur Corporation

Kerala HC17 Jun 2015WP(C)/4558/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that demanding a penalty on the connected load while an application for its reduction remains pending is unjustified. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding dues, subject to the petitioner remitting a specific sum within one month.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation within six weeks, subject to the remittance of Rs. 4,00,000 within one month, and coerc

Sidharthan K.K. Vs Thrissur Corporation — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/27TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4558 of 2015 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIDHARTHAN K.K. AGED 56 YEARS

¶8

S/O.KOPRA KUNJUMON, KOPRA HOUSE, MANTHALA AMSOM DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THRISSUR CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING THRISSUR – 680 001

¶12

2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY (ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT) THRISSUR CORPORATION THRISSUR – 680 001

¶13

3. SINDHU, AGED 40 YEARS D/O.PONNAPPAN, 5G, CHELUR TOWER PUTHOLE THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680 001

¶14

4. MAVIS DAVIS, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.DAVIS, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM THRISSUR DISTRICT – 686 502

¶15

5. TAHASILDAR

¶16

TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 686 502

¶17

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION R3 BY ADVS. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶18

SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA

¶19

SRI.JOSEPH KURIAN VALLAMATTAM R5 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 4558 of 2015 (T)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.11227/2009

¶25

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2009 IN IA. 3983/2009 IN OP NO.1413/2007

¶26

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2009

¶27

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2009

¶28

P4a: TRUE COPY OF THE HT AGREEMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT

¶29

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05.02.2010 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶30

P6; TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.02.2010 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶31

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.03.2010 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶32

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23.07.2010 IN WPC 23027/2010

¶33

P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶34

P10: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC NO.12494/2013 DATED 25.06.2013

¶35

P11: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25.06.2013 IN WPC NO. 12494/2013

¶36

P12: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2013 IN WPC NO.12494/2013 AND WPC NO. 23027/2010

¶37

P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2013 IN IA. NO.2880/2013 IN IA. NO.2558/2013 IN MAT APPEAL NO. 436/2013

¶38

P14: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2013 IN MAT APPEAL NO.436/2013

¶39

P15: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2014 IN WA. NOS. 1655 AND 1681 OF 2013

¶40

P16: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.04.2014 AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶41

P17: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.06.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶42

P18: TRUE COPY OF HE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 04.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶43

P19: TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 19.01.2015 AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶44

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶49

W.P.(C). NO. 4558 OF 2015

¶50

Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2015

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

There is no justification to demand penalty on the basis of the connected load keeping the application for reduction of connected load pending. This is the contention urged by the petitioner in Ext. P17 representation pending with the second respondent. Ext. P4 application for reduction of connected load filed by the third respondent has been pending for long without any final orders.

¶53

The petitioner and the third respondent were husband and wife and Ext. P4 representation had been filed by the third respondent as the Receiver of the property. But Ext. P17 representation has been filed by the petitioner after he was appointed as the Receiver of the same property. The dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent in respect of the property in question has attained finality and the receivership has been terminated.

¶54

W.P.(C). NO. 4558 OF 2015 2

¶55

Interest of justice would be met by directing the second respondent to consider Ext. P17 representation with notice to the petitioner as well as the third respondent. The needful shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The coercive steps pursuant to Ext. P18 demand notice shall be put on hold in the meanwhile. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a further sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards the dues with the second respondent within a period of one month.

¶56

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶57

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶58

DCS

Sidharthan K.K. v. Thrissur Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidharthan K.K. v. Thrissur Corporation

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

P. Nesan Vs Sri. Antony Chacko

V.Shamsudheen Vs the Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank Limited

Nizar Navab @ Navab Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

George Kutty Vs Sahadevan

Sajeev M.C Vs Saju George

Mr.E.v.Thomas Vs the K.S.E.B