Dismissed

The Paravoor Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd., v. the Kearla State Electricity Board Represented by Its Secretary

Kerala HC23 Aug 2016WP(C)/13488/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate order regarding electricity penal charges. The court held that the petitioner, a milk chilling plant, was correctly liable for LT-VIIA tariff and that the assessment involved only fixed and current charges, not penalties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted six months' time to pay the balance amount in six equal monthly instalments starting from 20/09/2016.

The Paravoor Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd., Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 13488 of 2014 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE PARAVOOR KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD., NO.C.185, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAVOOR P.O., PANAPPUZHA, KANNUR-670 306.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KEARLA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY KEARLA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD , ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KASARAGOD-671 001.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KEARLA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD , ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR-670 631.

¶13

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENIGNEER KEARLA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD , ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PAYYANANUR, KANNUR-670 307.

¶14

5. THE ASSISTANT ENIGNEER, KEARLA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD , ELECTRICAL SECTION, MATHAMANGALAM, P.O.M.M.BAZAR, KANNUR-670 001.

¶15

6. THE ASSISTANT ENIGNEER A.P.T.S.UNIT, K.S.E.B., KANNUR-670 001.

¶16

7. KEARLA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KPFC BHAVAN, C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMABALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. R1-R6 BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 13488 of 2014 (I)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 1/1/2008 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSRIES CENTRE, KANNUR TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY

¶23

EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 5/4/2010.

¶24

EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 2/3/2010.

¶25

EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 17/10/2012 PREPARED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT

¶26

EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RRESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶27

EXT.P6.TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶28

EXT.P7.TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND AND DISCONNECTION NTOICE DATED 30/1/2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶29

EXT.P8.TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION DATED 30/11/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶30

EXT.P9.TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 6/12/2012 IN OS NO.207/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR.

¶31

EXT.P10.THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED NIL MARCH 2013 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN OS NO.207/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MC, PAYYANNUR.

¶32

EXT.P11.TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND AND DISCONNECTION NOTICE DATED 11/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶33

EXT.P12.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 20/11/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶34

EXT.P13.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/3/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE APPEAL NO.GB1/APPEAL/14270/2013-14/390.

¶35

EXT.P14.TRUE COPY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT BILL DATED NIL.

¶36

EXT.P15.TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND AND DISCONNECTION NOTICE DATED 4/4/2014.

¶37

EXT.P16.TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GB/REPORT/PENAL BILL/2012-13/3039 DATED 11/2/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT

¶38

EXT.P17.TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 7/12/2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY FOR THE CONSUMER NO.9207.

¶39

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.13488 of 2014

¶44

Dated this the 23^rd day of August 2016

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

Petitioner challenges Exts.P13 and P14. Ext.P13 is the order passed by the appellate authority on 28/03/2014 with reference to an appeal filed by the petitioner wherein demand for penal charges as well as power charges had been demanded by the Kerala State Electricity Board alleging unauthorised use of additional load. That apart, there was an allegation that the petitioner is liable to pay at the rate of commercial tariff instead of industrial tariff. Ext.P14 is the computation with reference to the total amount payable in terms with Ext.P13 order. The petitioner is a society conducting collection, storage and supply of milk. Anti Power Theft Squad has conducted an inspection on 17/10/2012 and found that there was unauthorised load. Penal bill was issued for Rs.5,91,453/-. Petitioner challenged the same and it was reduced to Rs.2,27,618/-. Petitioner again preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Ext.P13 order had been passed. In Ext.P13, the appellate authority took note of the fact that there is

¶47

W.P.C.No.13488/2014

¶48

¶49

no necessity to impose any penal charges on the petitioner. However, there is an obligation to pay the current charges at LT-VIIA tariff on account of the fact that Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission had passed an order in the year 2007 directing the milk chilling plants to be charged at LT-VIIA tariff. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the appellate order imposes such an obligation, there is error on the part of the Assistant Engineer in computing the amount as per Ext.P14.

¶50

Perusal of Ext.P14 order would show that the appellate authority had considered all relevant aspects and arrived at a proper finding which cannot be found to be illegal or perverse for an interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Ext.P14 penal charges had been imposed by the petitioner. Perusal of Ext.P14 would show that though it is stated that the petitioner is penalised for three months, no charges had been imposed whereas what is collected is only proportionate fixed charge as well as current charges. Another contention urged by the petitioner is that the petitioner should not have been

¶51

W.P.C.No.13488/2014

¶52

¶53

mulcted with liability to pay LT-VIIA tariff from September 2008.

¶54

There is no dispute about the fact that the tariff was changed since 2007 by which milk chilling plants using 20% or more of the energy for milk chilling activities were liable to pay the tariff at LT-VIIA. Petitioner, apparently, was a milk chilling plant. Though the restriction of 20% had been taken away by a subsequent order passed in 2010, still the petitioner, being a milk chilling plant and utilising power for chilling of milk, was liable to pay at LT-VIIA tariff. Perusal of Ext.14 would show that what has been charged is only fixed charges as well as current charges and no penalty had been imposed on the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that there is no error in Ext.P14 warranting interference by this Court.

¶55

Taking into account the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is granted six months' time to pay the balance amount which shall be paid in six equal monthly instalments starting from 20/09/2016.

¶56

This writ petition stands dismissed.

¶57

jsr

The Paravoor Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd., v. the Kearla State Electricity Board Represented by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Paravoor Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd., v. the Kearla State Electricity Board Represented by Its Secretary

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

C.a.Unnikrishnan Vs the Dist. Collector & 4 Ors.

Sunny Mathew Vs Additional District Magistrate, Idukki

Kerala State Rice Mills Owners Vs Kseb

Kamalamma Vs the Authorized Officer (Chief Manager)

Asha Rahim Vs Kerala University of Health and Allied Sciences

M/S Central Advertising Agency Kottayam Vs Union of India and Others