Dismissed

Mata Amrithanandamayi Math v. the Kerala State Electricity Board and

Kerala HC18 Jul 2016WP(C)/33264/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a provisional electricity bill was dismissed. The court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and adjusted a pre-deposit accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to prefer appropriate appeal under Section 127 of the Act within four weeks; deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 adjusted for pre-deposit.

Mata Amrithanandamayi Math 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.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016/27TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 33264 of 2010 (G)

¶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.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

¶13

4. THE SUB ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

¶14

5. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KSEB, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

¶15

6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

R1 TO R5 BY SRI.P. SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR SC. R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD.

¶17

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

¶18

rs.

¶19

WP(C).No. 33264 of 2010 (G)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR POWER ALLOCATION FOR THE ADDITIONAL LOAD OF 14.43 KW DATED 13/01/2009.
EXT.P2	COPIES OF THE REMITTANCES FOR APPLICATION AND PROCESSING FEE.
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.
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR DATED 14/07/2010.
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20/07/2010.
EXT.P10	COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 11/10/2010.
EXT.P11	COPY OF THE SRO NO.250/2005.
EXT.P12	COPY OF THE FINAL BILL DATED 12/10/2010.
EXT.P13	COPY OF THE MONTHLY BILL DATED 07/10/2010.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶28

=============== W.P. (C) No. 33264 of 2010

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10, an order passed by the Assistant Engineer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is inter alia observed that the Anti Power Theft Squad had conducted an inspection at the premises of Consumer No.12872 and detected unauthorised load of 3 KW in addition to the registered load of 16 KW. Proceeding on the basis that there is unauthorised extension, provisional bill had been issued for `2,51,558/-. Petitioner submitted an objection stating that the petitioner had applied for additional connected load as early as in January, 2009 and the issue regarding the same was pending consideration before the respondent authorities. However, final bill had been issued by the Assistant Engineer in terms of Ext.P10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time, the appellate authority was not properly constituted and therefore, no appeal was filed in terms of Section 127 of the Act.

¶33

W.P(C) No.33264/10

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

Now that by virtue of judgment of this Court, the appellate authority had already been constituted, the petitioner seeks right to prefer an appropriate appeal challenging Ext.P10.

¶36

Having regard to the fact that the appellate authority has already been constituted in the matter, it would only be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 127 of the Act.

¶37

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under.

¶38

(i) Petitioner shall prefer appropriate appeal before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Act within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

(ii) The amount of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards the pre-deposit to be made and the balance only need be deposited by the petitioner on receiving the memorandum of appeal.

¶40

(iii) The appeal shall be disposed of by the appellate authority, as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶43

Rp18/07/2016

¶44

//True Copy//

¶45

P.S to Judge

Mata Amrithanandamayi Math v. the Kerala State Electricity Board and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mata Amrithanandamayi Math v. the Kerala State Electricity Board and

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 Amritanandamayi Math Vs the Keala State Electricity Board

Chandrasekhara Pillai Vs Authorized Officer

Vijaya Kumar Peter Vs the Hsbc Bank & Ors.