Allowed

Mata Amritanandamayi Math v. the Keala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC18 Jul 2016WP(C)/33022/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a demand notice for transformer installation charges. The court held that under Regulation 8(c) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, the board cannot levy such costs for loads below 50 kVA. The demand was quashed, and the bank guarantee was ordered returned.

What did the court decide?

The demand notice was set aside; the bank guarantee is to be returned; the board is not entitled to charges for the transformer.

Mata Amritanandamayi Math Vs the Keala State… — 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 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016/27TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 33022 of 2009 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MATA AMRITANANDAMAYI MATH, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS), PROF. G.RAVINDRAN NAIR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SRIKUMAR, SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN, SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶13

BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR SC, ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN, SC.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 33022 of 2009 (W)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR POWER ALLOCATION FOR THE ADDITIONAL LOAD OF 14.43 KW DATED 13/01/2009.

¶20

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REMITTANCES FOR APPLICATION AND PROCESSING FEE.

¶21

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13/01/2009. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/07/2009. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/09/2009. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/11/2009. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF BILLS ISSUED FROM FEBRUARY 2009 TO OCTOBER 2009.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶27

=============== W.P. (C) No. 33022 of 2009

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this, the 18^th day of July, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 demand notice and seeking for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to provide additional load pursuant to Ext.P3 application to the petitioner.

¶32

Petitioner is a consumer of power supplied by the Kerala State Electricity Board, which is the licensee. Petitioner was provided with 16 KW connected load in 2005. Petitioner applied for additional connected load of 14.43 KW. The application was submitted on 13/1/2009. Petitioner also remitted the requisite fee. Nothing was heard in the matter for quite some time. However, on 28/7/2009, petitioner was served with a notice calling upon him to remit `4,30,152/- as per Ext.P4. In Ext.P4, it was informed that the amount is required for drawing 225 metre 11 KV line as well as to install 100 KVA transformer and the amount claimed is estimated for the said expenditure. Petitioner objected to the same by indicating that there is no obligation to

¶33

W.P(C) No.33022/09

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

pay additional amount for a transformer especially in the light of Regulation 8(c) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005. Since no action was taken in the matter, this writ petition is filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶36

A statement has been filed by the respondent Board inter alia stating that they are entitled to demand the charges incurred for setting up of a transformer as well as for drawal of line. It is stated that on studying the feasibility of providing additional load to the petitioner and on noticing that there is necessity for installing a 100 KVA transformer, the demand had been made. They supported the stand relying upon Regulation 26 of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Regulation 8(c) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, which reads as under;

¶38

“8(c) The cost estimates for LT consumers shall include the cost of service line and terminal arrangements at the premises of the applicant but shall not include the cost of meter, if connected load is below 50 kVA. For loads of 50 kVA and above connection shall be effected only after installation of separate transformer of adequate

¶39

W.P(C) No.33022/09

¶40

-:3:-

¶41

capacity, the cost of which shall be recovered from the consumer. In such cases the consumer shall provide the space for erecting such transformer.”

¶42

5. Further reference is made to Regulation 4(1) of the

¶43

KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 which reads as under;

¶44

“4. Power to recover expenditure; (1) Subject to the conditions under clause 8 of the Code, the Commission authorizes the Board under Section 46 of the Act, to recover in advance from the owner or occupier of any premises requiring supply the expenses reasonably incurred by the Board for providing any electric line or electrical plant required specifically for the purpose of giving such supply. The cost estimates for LT consumers shall include the cost of service line and terminal arrangements at the premises of the applicant but shall not include the cost of meter. For loads of 50 kVA and above connection shall be effected only after installation of separate transformer of adequate capacity, the cost of which shall be recovered from the consumer. In such cases the consumer shall provide the space for erecting such transformer;

¶45

Provided that the Board will not be entitled to recover such expenditure if such expenditure is under the scheme approved by the Commission or other wise charged in the Annual Revenue Requirements of the Board:

¶46

Provided also that, the Board may exempt

¶47

W.P(C) No.33022/09

¶48

-:4:-

¶49

any person requiring connection under clause 5(1) from payment of expenditure if such person belongs to a category below poverty line requiring supply with a connected load below 500 W or if such person belongs to SC/ST category requiring supply with a connected load below 1000 w.

¶50

The State Government may direct the Board to provide new electric connections to any category of consumer by paying the cost of providing connection as specified in these regulations in advance to the Board.

¶51

Consumers are eligible for instalment facility to remit the cost of electric line extension/substation construction for new connections as per sub clause 4(1) up to a maximum number of sixty (60) instalments and interest rate applicable shall be twice the bank rate. Separate agreement to this effect shall be executed by these consumers with the Board.”

¶52

It is apparent from the above provisions that only if there is a demand for additional load above 50 kVA that it requires installation of a transformer and charges can be levied from the consumer. In the present case, the total connected load of the petitioner is below 50 kVA. Under such circumstances, the action of the Board in demanding charges for installing a transformer is absolutely baseless and the said demand is liable to be set aside

W.P(C) No.33022/09

-:5:-

and I do so.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner had given a bank guarantee for the amount involved in the matter and the additional load had already been sanctioned.

¶57

Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I do not think that any further direction is required to be passed. It is made clear that the Board is not entitled for any amount as claimed for installing a new transformer. The Bank guarantee given by the petitioner to that extent has to be returned. However, the Board will be entitled to seek for any charges in terms of Regulation 26 of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005.

¶58

With the above observation, this writ petition is closed.

¶59

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶60

Rp18/07/2016

¶61

//True Copy//

¶62

P.S to Judge

Mata Amritanandamayi Math v. the Keala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mata Amritanandamayi Math v. the Keala State Electricity 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

M/S.Prasanthi Cashew Traders Vs the Chief Manager, Canara Bank

Jose.K.a. Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Augustine Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Mata Amrithanandamayi Math Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board and

Chandrasekhara Pillai Vs Authorized Officer

Vijaya Kumar Peter Vs the Hsbc Bank & Ors.