Disposed

Aleyamma Thomas v. K.S.E.B.

Kerala HC18 Jul 2016WP(C)/11141/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent Board to issue a final assessment bill after providing an opportunity to object to the provisional bill. Pending final orders, the balance demand was kept in abeyance, and the petitioner's right to challenge the final order was preserved.

What did the court decide?

Issued final assessment bill to the petitioner after giving an opportunity to file an objection; balance demand kept in abeyance; right to challenge final order left open.

Aleyamma Thomas Vs K.S.E.B. — 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

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016/27TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11141 of 2010 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

ALEYAMMA THOMAS, W/O.V.L.THOMAS, VALLIKATTIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, K.S.E.B, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B, ETTUMANOOR.

¶13

4. ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, KOTTAYAM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SENIOR ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-07-2016, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO.11156 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 11141 of 2010 (P)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS DATED 08.09.2008.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 22.03.2010.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.11.2009

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY BILL DATED 27.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ETTUMANOOR BRANCH DATED 02.03.2010.

¶28

EXHIBIT P8(A): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ETTUMANOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO.4069.

¶29

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ETTUMANOOR BRANCH.

¶30

EXHIBIT P9(A): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ETTUMANOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,13,706/- TO ONE OF THE PETITIONER'S SON DATED 04.02.2010.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶32

EXHIBIT R3(A): THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CONSUMER'S PREMISES.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.Nos.11141 & 11156 of 2010

¶37

Dated this the 18^th day of July 2016

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the action of the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in attempting to disconnect the power connection to the petitioner after having issued a provisional bill in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶40

The main contention urged by the petitioner in these cases is that provisional bills had been issued on the allegation that the power connection given to the petitioner for industrial use had been utilised for commercial purpose. Petitioner disputes the aforesaid fact. The materials placed on record would indicate that though provisional bill had been issued, no final assessment has been made by the Assistant Engineer in terms of Section 126 of the Act.

¶41

During the course of hearing, this Court had requested the learned Standing Counsel to take instructions in that regard. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the records are not available in order to verify the said position. Petitioner had

¶42

W.P.C.Nos.11141 & 11156 of 2010

¶43

¶44

remitted 50% of the demand in the above cases as a condition for re-connection.

¶45

Under such circumstances, I am of the view that these writ petitions can be disposed of as under:

¶46

i) Respondent Board shall issue final assessment bill to the petitioner after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file objection to the provisional bill.

¶47

ii) If the petitioner intends to challenge the said order so passed, the said right is left open.

¶48

Iii) Until final orders are passed, the demand for the balance amount shall be kept in abeyance.

¶49

(sd/-)

¶50

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶51

jsr

Aleyamma Thomas v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aleyamma Thomas v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Prasanthi Cashew Traders Vs the Chief Manager, Canara Bank

Jose.K.a. Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Augustine Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Mata Amrithanandamayi Math Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board and

Mata Amritanandamayi Math Vs the Keala State Electricity Board

Chandrasekhara Pillai Vs Authorized Officer