Quashed

Thomas P.Oomen v. Tahsildar & Others

Kerala HC1 Aug 2016WP(C)/22008/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging revenue recovery notice for electricity charges despite dismantling of power. Quashed the notice and directed the Executive Engineer to verify liability and permit refund if no amount is due.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P8 revenue recovery notice quashed; petitioner directed to submit representation to Executive Engineer for verification of liability and refund of deposit if no amount is payable.

Thomas P.Oomen Vs Tahsildar & Others — 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 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 22008 of 2008 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THOMAS P.OOMEN,

¶8

PALLUVIRUTHIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM.P.O, NIRANAM, THIRUVALLA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU CHERUKARA

¶10

SRI.ANZAR BASHEER

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1.THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA.

¶13

2.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVALLA.

¶14

3.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, THIRUVALLA.

¶15

4.KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T R2 TO R4 BY SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 22008 of 2008 (T)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT. P1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.7686 OF 1998 DATED 21.4.1998 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.

¶23

EXT. P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.20274/98 IN O.P.NO.7686/98 M DATED 9.12.1998 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶24

EXT. P3 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.9.2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT. P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.GB1-18/98/1457 DATED THIRUVALLA 28.11.2002 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT. P5 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BILL DATED 15.2.2003 FOR RS.4,572/- ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT. P6 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.2.03.

¶28

EXT. P7 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DATED 18.9.2003 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT. P8 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.C-1/75/06/C.C. DATED 25.1.2008 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶35

=============== W.P. (C) No. 22008 of 2008

¶36

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

¶37

Dated this, the 1^st day of August, 2016

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Petitioner challenges Ext.P8 revenue recovery notice by which the petitioner had been called upon to pay an amount of `5,299/with interest and other charges. In Ext.P8, it is stated that the revenue recovery had been taken for recovery of current charges.

¶40

According to the petitioner, though there was a demand against the petitioner for power charges, he had settled the same in terms of Ext.P6 dated 15/2/2003 by remitting `4,572/-. Bill in that regard was Ext.P5 dated 15/2/2003 for the very same amount. Petitioner submits that thereafter the power had been dismantled and there was no question of any further amount being payable to the Electricity Board. It is at that stage that the petitioner is faced with Ext.P8.

¶41

No counter affidavit is filed by the Electricity Board. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is stated that the requisition for the amount has been made by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Thiruvalla for recovering `5,299/-, which is in respect of

¶42

W.P(C) No.22008/08

¶43

-:2:-

¶44

current charges from February 2005 to December, 2005. According to the petitioner, the power had been dismantled long back and therefore there cannot be any obligation to pay any such charges.

¶45

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I am of the view that this matter requires to be addressed by the Executive Engineer at Thiruvalla, who is the requisitioning authority.

¶46

In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as under:-

¶47

(i) Ext.P8 is quashed.

¶48

(ii) The petitioner shall submit a representation along with

¶49

a copy of this judgment to the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Thiruvalla, who shall verify as to whether any amount is payable by the petitioner and a reply shall be given within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said representation.

¶50

(iii) If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such order, it shall be open for the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.

¶51

W.P(C) No.22008/08

¶52

(iv) If it is found that no amount is payable by the petitioner, the amount deposited by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition as per interim order dated 19/8/2008 shall be given as refund.

¶53

(sd/-)

¶54

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶55

Rp01/08/2016

Thomas P.Oomen v. Tahsildar & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas P.Oomen v. Tahsildar & Others

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

Samad T.P Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Joseph M.Kallivayilil

Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India

R.Jayakumar Vs Branch Manager United Bank of India

T.P. George Vs Shimmy Thomas & Others

Trinity Medical Centre Vs the Intelligence Inspector