Disposed

K.J. Abdul Salam v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC13 Jun 2016WP(C)/2833/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought reconnection of electricity supply without paying a disputed bill of Rs.16,060/-, claiming no valid bill existed. Court directed the Board to issue bill particulars within two weeks and permit fresh connection application irrespective of the pending dispute liability.

What did the court decide?

Directed Board to issue notice on claim of Rs.16,060/- within two weeks and consider fresh connection application irrespective of the disputed bill pendency.

K.J. Abdul Salam 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

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/23RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2833 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

K.J. ABDUL SALAM, S/O. JAILANI, HASEENA MANZIL, HOSPITAL ROAD,NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SMT. SHAHIDA SALAM, W/O. K.J ABDUL SALAM, HASEENA MANZIL, HOSPITAL ROAD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.R.B.RAJESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN,

¶11

PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 004

¶12

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 541

¶13

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 541

¶14

BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 2833 of 2016 (D)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05-09-2013 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15-07-2013 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED NIL EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO.16045/2014 DATED 12-08-2014 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25-09-2014 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24-11-2014 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24-11-2014 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12-10-2015

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶27

------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2833 of 2016

¶28

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the respondent Board to reconnect the electric connection to the premises of the petitioner (Consumer No.28526 of Electrical Section, Nedumangad) without insisting for the payment of Rs.16,060/-.

¶31

The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner had given his property on rent. Without the permission of the petitioner, certain additional structures were constructed in the property and an unathorised connection was taken, which was found out by the Electricity Board and penalty had been imposed in terms of Ext.P5.

¶32

According to the petitioner, the amount covered by Ext.P5 had been paid except for an amount of Rs.16,060/-, for which, according to the petitioner, no bill had been issued. Petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation before the Assistant

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 2833 of 2016

¶34

-2-

¶35

Executive Engineer, requesting for reconnection without insisting for the aforesaid payment. However, the same was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶36

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no liability to pay Rs.16,060/as demanded in Ext.P5, as no such bill has been issued. That apart, the petitioner is deprived of power connection by demanding the aforesaid amount.

¶37

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board would however submit that Rs.16,060/represents the energy charges and normally bills are being issued from time to time. That part, petitioner has not sought for fresh connection since the power connection had already been dismantled.

¶38

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the following directions can be given to the Board to issue bills showing the particulars of the amount

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 2833 of 2016

¶40

-3-

¶41

demanded and also permitting the petitioner to apply for power connection afresh. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶42

(i) The respondent Board shall give a notice to the petitioner regarding the particulars showing the claim for an amount of Rs.16,060/- and if it is objected, it shall be open for the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings, within two weeks thereof. The liability to pay Rs.16,060/- will be subject to such challenge.

¶43

(ii) Petitioner shall apply afresh for connection to the building or seek for reconnection as the case may be.

¶44

(iii) Board shall consider the said request and pass

¶45

appropriate orders irrespective of the pendency of the bill for an amount of Rs.16,060/-.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶48

Scl/13.06.2016

K.J. Abdul Salam v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.J. Abdul Salam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivakumar Vs the Authorised & Chief Manager Syndicate Bank

A.M.Aseem Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt)

M/S. Kanam Latex Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mothilal Vs Jacob

Abraham.v.a. Vs the Tahsildar,Kanayannoor Taluk & Ors.

K. Lakshmanan Vs District Collector