Disposed

Rafeek P.S v. the Kerala State Electricity

Kerala HC16 Jun 2016WP(C)/10808/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner operated a Cable TV network using Board poles without an agreement and was demanded rent. Court held disputes over terms, rates, or permissions are not for writ jurisdiction but should be resolved via agreement or civil court. Petitioner given time to execute agreement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given four weeks to enter agreement with Board. Right to challenge demand in Civil Court reserved.

Rafeek P.S Vs the Kerala State Electricity — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10808 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

RAFEEK P.S.,

¶8

AGED 40, S/O. SULAIMAN, PALLIMOLATH HOUSE, PERINGALA P.O., KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PINARMUNDA - 683 565, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 301.

¶13

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VYTTILA, KOCHI- 682 019.

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THRIKKAKKARA, KOCHI- 682 021.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB, SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WP(C).No. 10808 of 2016 (A)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXHIBIT P1:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE POSTMASTER, ALUVA, HEAD POST OFFICE DATED 19-12-2014.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 08-03-2016.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17-03-2016 TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO. 38999/2015 DATED 22-12-2015 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶31

============= W.P. (C) No. 10808 of 2016

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this, the 16^th day of June, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner is operating a Cable TV network. According to him, he was using separate poles for Cable TV network. During 2014, when the Board had taken certain policy decisions to permit Cable TV operators to use their electric poles for drawing cable lines, petitioner decided to opt for the poles of the Board. Accordingly, he started using the poles of the Board from 2015, though no agreement was executed. Petitioner was thereafter served with a letter calling upon him to remit `53,976/- being the pole rent from 2011-12 to 2015-16 for 39 poles. According to the petitioner, he is not liable to pay the said amount.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶37

First of all, the arrangement between the petitioner and the Board is not statutory in nature. It is by way of permission granted by the Board that the cables are being drawn by Cable TV operators. If there is any dispute regarding the terms of such

¶38

W.P(C) No.10808/16

¶39

-:2:-

¶40

agreement, the manner in which the arrangement has to work out, the dispute regarding the number of poles utilized or the rate claimed, such issues cannot be adjudicated by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

First of all, the petitioner does not have any agreement and even assuming that agreement is in force, still, this Court cannot take any decision with reference to the rate claimed by the Board and from which date such amounts can be claimed. Such issues have to be adjudicated only by a Civil Court or if the Board is willing to give any concession, it is for the Board to take such decision.

¶42

Having regard to the aforesaid disputed facts, I do not think that this Court will be justified in issuing any direction as sought for. However, taking into account the plight of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of as under;

¶43

(i) That the petitioner is given four weeks' time to enter into appropriate agreement with the Board for continuing the Cable TV network on payment of such amount as may be demanded by the Board.

¶44

(ii) If the agreement is not executed as stated above, it

¶45

W.P(C) No.10808/16

¶46

-:3:-

¶47

shall be open for the Board to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶48

(iii) The right of the petitioner to challenge the demand made in terms of Ext.P2 is reserved and it shall be open for the petitioner to agitate his rights before a Civil Court.

¶49

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶50

Rp17/06/2016

¶51

//True Copy//

¶52

P.S to Judge

Rafeek P.S v. the Kerala State Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafeek P.S v. the Kerala State Electricity

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

Joseph K.G. Vs State of Kerala

Prasanna Kumari Vs the District Collector Kollam & Others

E.B.Sudheer Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Santhosh Kumar Vs South Indian Bank, Ltd.

Bibi George Chacko Vs the Recovery Officer

Jalaja Chandrasekharan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer