Disposed

Malik Deenar Public School v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission

Kerala HC12 Feb 2016WP(C)/13/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner public school challenged enhanced electricity bill tariffs. Court directed petitioner to continue payments under disputed LT VII(A) rates while barring respondents from recovery proceedings, subject to Supreme Court's decision on a stayed appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to continue payment under LT VII(A); respondents restrained from initiating recovery proceedings on excess charges pending Supreme Court decision.

Malik Deenar Public School Vs Kerala State Electricity… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/23RD MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 13 of 2012 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MALIK DEENAR PUBLIC SCHOOL, MALIK DEENAR ROAD, ADIVAD, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM (DT.) - 686 675, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION NO.II, K, .S.E.B., POTHANICAD-686671.

¶13

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN,SC BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, BY SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC BY SRI.ANEESH JAMES,SC R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 13 of 2012 (B)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT. P1 :	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1631/2009 DATED 25.8.09.
EXT. P2 :	PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER AND BILL DATED 30.11.2011.
EXT. P3 :	PHOTOCOPY OF THE BILL/DEMAND NOTICE DATED 3.12.2011.
EXT. P4 :	PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2011.
EXT. P5 :	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.9.2011.
EXT. P6 :	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN WA.NO.650/2010 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 28.5.2010.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.V. ASHA, J.

----------------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 13 of 2012

¶27

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner who is a self financing Senior

¶30

Secondary Public School, challenges Exts.P2 and P3 bills demanding payment of electricity charges fixing the electricity tariff including it in the category of LT VII(A). Petitioner claims that charges were being paid regularly at

¶31

the rates admissible under LT VIA and that it is liable to be included under LT VI(A) only.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶33

the learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B.

¶34

It is pointed out that the issue arising in this case

¶35

is covered by the judgment of this Court in Bro. Joseph Antony v. Kerala State Electricity Board [2009 (3) KLT

¶36

W.P.(C).No. 13 of 2012 -2-

¶37

1022] . At the same time, it is also pointed out that the

¶38

K.S.E.B. has taken up the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the operation of the said judgment stands stayed. It is agreed by both sides that similar cases are being disposed of directing the K.S.E.B. to keep in abeyance, the proceedings for recovery of arrears under the enhanced rates and directing the consumer to make payment under the new tariff, in order to protect the interest of both sides subject to the final decision of the

¶39

apex court.

¶40

In these circumstances the writ petition is

¶41

disposed of (I) directing the petitioner to continue payment of electricity charges under LT VII(A) and (II) directing the respondents not to initiate any proceedings for recovery on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3. It is made clear that the

¶42

payment by the petitioner under LT VIIA as well as

¶43

W.P.(C).No. 13 of 2012 -3-

¶44

realisation/refund of the difference in rates would be

¶45

subject to the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶46

in the appeal against the decision in Bro. Joseph Antony v.

¶47

Kerala State Electricity Board [2009 (3) KLT 1022]..

¶48

The writ petition is, accordingly disposed of.

¶49

Sd/P.V. ASHA JUDGE

¶50

bpr

Malik Deenar Public School v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malik Deenar Public School v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deputy General Manager, Sbt Vs S.Sankar and Another

State Bank of Travancore Vs M/S.Target Overseas Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Ratheesh M.D. Vs Iringalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No. 55

Hemalatha S.V. Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Employees Pension Board

K.v.Krishnan Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Employees'Pens

Deepa George Vs State of Kerala