Allowed

Kerala State Electricity Board v. the Mahatma Gandhi

Kerala HC1 Jun 2016RP/416/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a review petition filed to correct clerical errors in an earlier judgment. The court directed correction of tariff references from LT VIA to LT VIIA and reclassification of the petitioner from private institution to Self-financing institution.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; judgment corrected to read LT VIIA tariff and 'Self-financing institution' instead of LT VIA and 'private educational institution'.

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

R.P.No.416 of 2016 IN WP(C).4453/2016 - F

¶6

[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.4453/2016-F DATED 05.02.2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA]

¶7

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER(S) / RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:-

¶9

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶10

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685584.

¶11

BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. JAICE JACOB.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) / PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 & 4:-

¶13

THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O. - 686 560, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, REPESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARTY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KPFC BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.

¶16

R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO. R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.SANEER. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.SUJIN.

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶19

-----------------------------------------------------------------R.P.No.416 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.4453 of 2016-F

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 01^st day of June, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The review is filed only on the ground that there

¶24

is a mistake in the judgment, insofar as directing the petitioner to pay charges at LT VIA for continued consumption of energy. The judgment starts with the sentence that “question involved is as to whether Private educational institutions are liable to be charged under LT VIA tariff, in distinction with other educational institutions which are charged under LT VIA”. This is an obvious mistake committed mentioning the tariff to be LT VIA tariff and the same has to be corrected as LT VIIA.

¶25

The next correction required is, insofar as the correction of the description of the petitioner as a “private educational institution” to a “Self-financing institution”. In

¶26

RP.416 of 2016 - 2 - WP(C).4453 of 2016

¶27

such circumstance, the first sentence of the judgment shall be read as under:

¶28

“Question involved is as to whether Self-financing institutions are liable to be charged under LT VIIA tariff, in distinction with other educational institutions which are charged under LT VIA”.

¶29

This Court having considered the issue and found that the very same subject matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed the petitioner to pay charges at the enhanced rate in future and the arrears as per the LT VIA tariff rate. Again while making such directions, in paragraph 4 where the sentence is as under:

¶30

“It is made clear that the respondents are free to charge the petitioner under LT VIA tariff for continued consumption of energy”.

¶31

The above sentence shall be read as under:

¶32

“It is made clear that the respondents are free to charge the petitioner under LT VIIA tariff for continued consumption of energy”.

¶33

RP.416 of 2016 WP(C).4453 of 2016

¶34

¶35

There is also a contention that there is a

¶36

revision of tariff after the passing of the judgment, which need not be specifically referred to, since comparable tariff rate has to be applied while seeking for arrears and future

¶37

consumption charges.

¶38

The review petition is allowed as above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶41

vku/-

¶42

[ true copy ]

Kerala State Electricity Board v. the Mahatma Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Electricity Board v. the Mahatma Gandhi

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

The Secretary,Mukkom Grama Panchayath Vs the Hon'Ble Ombudsman for Local Self Gov

Lalu T.C. Vs Avanur Grama Panchayat

Babu C.George Vs P.J.Jose

K.S.E.D.C. Ltd. Vs Keltron Employees Association

Channanikkadu Kasheerloadaka Co-Op. Vs K.C.Rajappan

M/S.Imperial Engineering Company Vs the Kerala Construction Workers