Quashed

M/S.I.R.Wood Industries. v. the Kerala State Electicity Board.

Kerala HC18 May 2016WP(C)/1476/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging an order by the 2nd respondent under Section 126 of the Electricity Act confirming an electricity demand bill. The court held that the order was laconic and bereft of reasons for rejecting objections. It quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 order quashed; 2nd respondent directed to pass a fresh reasoned order within one month after hearing the petitioner.

M/S.I.R.Wood Industries. Vs the Kerala State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2016/28TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).NO. 1476 OF 2006 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S.I.R.WOOD INDUSTRIES, VALAYANCHIRANGARA.(P.O), PERUMBAVOOR,, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MRS.RASHEEDA ISMAIL.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, VALAYANCHIRANGARA-683 556, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶12

3. THE SUB ENGINEER,

¶13

ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, VALAYANCHIRANGARA-683 556, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶14

R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB R1-3 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA-KSEB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).NO. 1476 OF 2006 (A)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1: SITE INSPECTION MAHAZAR DT:19.04.2005

¶20

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DT:22.04.2005

¶21

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE BILL DT:22.4.2005

¶22

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN W.P. (C).NO.137569/05

¶23

EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.13769/05 DT:2.9.2005

¶24

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DT:10.10.2005

¶25

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DT:24.12.2005

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

P A TO JUDGE

¶29

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶30

............................................................. W.P.(C).No.1476 of 2006

¶31

............................................................. Dated this the 18^th day of May, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7 order passed by the 2^nd respondent under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Pursuant to an inspection of the petitioner's premises, the respondents found that the electricity meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was not properly recording the consumption of electricity in the premises. The 2^nd respondent therefore issued Ext.P3 bill recomputing the energy charges in respect of the petitioner's premises for a period of six months prior to the date of the inspection. Since the petitioner was of the view that the computation of demand by the respondents in Ext.P3 bill was not correct, the petitioner impugned the same in W.P(C). No.13769 of 2005, which was disposed by Ext.P5 judgment directing the petitioner to file his objections to Ext.P3 bill within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, and a further direction to the 2^nd respondent to take a decision in accordance with law on the said objection within a further period of two weeks. It would appear that pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 objection before the 2^nd respondent. In Ext.P6 objection the

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C).No.1476 of 2006

¶36

petitioner contended, inter alia, that it was not open to the respondents to issue a bill based on the previous six months average consumption, in a case where there was no finding of theft of electricity, and the finding arrived at the inspection was only with regard to the meter not properly recording the electricity consumption. It was also contended that the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code, and in particular, Regulation 31 therein did not authorise the respondents to effect any assessment for a prior period. Pursuant to Ext.P6 objection filed by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P7 order confirming the demand of Rs.4,34,936/- on the petitioner and directing the petitioner to pay the sum within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. In the writ petition, Ext.P7 order is impugned, inter alia, on the ground that, the said order is a laconic one bereft of any reasons and does not specifically advert to the contentions of the petitioner as enumerated in Ext.P6 objection.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board.

¶38

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C).No.1476 of 2006

¶41

case and the submissions made across the bar, I find from Ext.P7 order of the 2^nd respondent that the said order does not refer to any of the specific contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6 objection to Ext.P3 bill that was raised on him. In Ext.P7 order, the 2^nd respondent merely disputes the correctness of the submissions made by the petitioner but does not give any reason as to why the said objections did not find favour with the 2^nd respondent leading to a rejection of the objections by the said respondent. In my view, a statutory authority, who is entrusted with the adjudication of a dispute, more so when it is pursuant to a direction from this Court, is obliged to furnish reasons for his decision. In the absence of any reasons, the petitioner cannot be directed to pursue a statutory remedy by way of an appeal because the petitioner would not be in a position to file an effective appeal without first appreciating the basis for the rejection of his objections by the 2^nd respondent. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that, Ext.P7 order ought to be quashed as a laconic order bereft of any reasons. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P7 order and direct the 2^nd respondent to pass a fresh order after considering Ext.P6 objection preferred by the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C).No.1476 of 2006

¶44

the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for further action.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶47

mns/18.05.16

M/S.I.R.Wood Industries. v. the Kerala State Electicity Board.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.I.R.Wood Industries. v. the Kerala State Electicity 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

Manager, St.Sebastians Convnent EMLPS64 Vs State of Kerala

Yesudas Vs the S.I of Police

The Irikkur Block Co-Operative Vs a.N.Prabhakaran

M/S. Capvest Management Services (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

C.T.John Vs Tahsildar,Kottayam

St. Antoney U.P. School, Valiyathura Vs the State of Kerala