Disposed

Thomas K.G. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC17 Jun 2016WP(C)/12173/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged penal electricity bills alleging unauthorised load. The Court held that despite the time lag, the factual nature of the dispute required an opportunity to challenge the bills. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within four weeks.

Thomas K.G. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — 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

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/27TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 12173 of 2010 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THOMAS K.G., PROPRIETOR, BEST PLASTICS, WEST CHALAKUDY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.V.R.REKESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUDHIBHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHALAKUDY.

¶13

4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

R1-R4 BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC, KSERC SMT.P.K.RADHIKA, SC, KSEB SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R4 BY ADVS. SRI.ANEESH JAMES, SC SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR, SC,

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 12173 of 2010 (V)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 : COPY OF THE MAHAZER DTD.31.3.2005.

¶21

P2 : COPY OF THE BILL DTD.14.5.2008.

¶22

P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.BB7/09-10/DTD.16.2.2010.

¶23

P3(a): COPY OF THE NOTICE INVOICE DTD.10.2.2010.

¶24

P4 : COPY OF THE BEARING NO.BB8/09-10/10817/02 DTD.8.3.2010.

¶25

P4(a): COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD.8.3.2010 FOR RS.98,826/-

¶26

P5 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.17.3.2010.

¶27

P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.DB/ROA/AUDIT REPORT/09-1/291 DTD.29.3.2010.

¶28

P7 : COPY OF THE B.O.(FB) NO.1292/2002 (PLG.COM 4206/01) DTD.18.9.2002.

¶29

P8 : COPY OF THE B.O.(FM) NO.368/2008 (DPC1/C-G1/182/2007 DTD.7.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶31

-------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶37

============= W.P. (C) No. 12173 of 2010

¶38

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

¶39

Dated this, the 17^th day of June, 2016

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

Petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P3(a), P4, P4(a) and P6 by which he was called upon to pay fixed charges as well as energy charges for the unauthorised use of electrical energy. According to the petitioner, he was given power supply in respect of Consumer No.8409 with installed authorised load of 20 KW. However, bills came to be issued showing authorised load of 69.5 KW. Subsequently, amended bills were issued stating that the there was mistake in the earlier bills and demand had been made for an amount of `98,826/- and subsequent bills were also being issued with penal charges. According to the petitioner, he was also paying the amount as demanded by the Board and there was no reason for demanding penal charges. Petitioner has approached this Court since there was a challenge to the constitution of the appellate authority.

¶42

It is submitted that by virtue of interim order passed by this Court, petitioner had remitted the disputed bill amounts as

¶43

W.P(C) No.12173/10

¶44

-:2:-

¶45

well. The limited relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition is for a permission to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid penal charges by filing an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶46

Heard the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board. It is stated that the Board is entitled to collect such charges when a mistake is noticed and when actually there is unauthorised connected load.

¶47

Be that as it may, since the only request made by the petitioner is for an opportunity to prefer appeal impugning the aforesaid demand/bill, I am of the view that despite the lag of time, an opportunity has to be granted to the petitioner as the questions raised are factual in nature, which can be gone into by the appellate authority.

¶48

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under;

¶49

The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate appeal against the impugned bill which shall be considered within a period of four weeks from today and on filing of the appeal, the appellate

¶50

W.P(C) No.12173/10

¶51

-:3:-

¶52

authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in

¶53

accordance with law.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶56

Rp17/06/2016

¶57

//True Copy//

¶58

P.S to Judge

Thomas K.G. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas K.G. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

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

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

Bibi George Chacko Vs the Recovery Officer

Jalaja Chandrasekharan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Mrs. Jasitha Onden Vs the State Bank of India

Toji Raphel P Vs Union of India

Canara Bank Vs M/S.Annam Steels Pvt. Ltd.