Dismissed

Sri.K.Udayakumar v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Kerala HC26 Jul 2016WP(C)/3462/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the State Electricity Board's short assessment bill arguing he was a subsequent owner with a lower connectivity. The court upheld the Ombudsman's confirmation of the demand, granting two months to pay the balance without immediate interest, threatening 6% annual interest for delayed payment. Dismissal of writ petition with directions.

What did the court decide?

Challenge to Ombudsman orders negatived; petitioner granted two months to remit balance amount without interest; default interest of 6% per annum to accrue if not paid within the period.

Sri.K.Udayakumar Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2016/4TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3462 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SRI.K. UDAYAKUMAR,

¶8

M.C.M. FURNITURE, EDACHIRA, KADALUNDY P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 302.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL S.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION FEROKE, KSEB, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶12

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION KADALUNDY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶13

3. CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶14

4. THE STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, PALLIKAVIL BUILDING, MAMANGALAM - ANCHUMANA TEMPLE ROAD, OPP. KOCHI CO-OPERATION REGIONAL OFFICE, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI - 682 024.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JAICE JACOB, SC

¶16

SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, SC,KSEB

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

WP(C).No. 3462 of 2012 (G)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P-1	TRUE COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 18.2.1010.
EXT.P-2	TRUE COPY OF THE	BILL DATED 18.2.2010.
EXT.P-3	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND 3.5.2010.
EXT.P-4	TRUE COPY OF THE	ORDER DATED 08.10.2010.
EXT.P-5	TRUE COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 20.10.2010.
EXT.P-6	TRUE COPY OF THE 18.11.2010.	JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.34651/2010 DATED
EXT.P-7	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION NO.P/175	ORDER DATED 09.01.2012 IN APPEAL /2010.
EXT.P-8	TRUE COPY OF THE TO THE PETITIONER	LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.01.2012.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶24

------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

*** * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.3462 of 2012

¶31

Dated this the 26^th day of July 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8. By Ext.P7, the State Electricity Ombudsman had confirmed the demand made by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in respect of a short assessment bill issued to the consumer for a period from January 2003 to January 2010 for Rs.64,332/-. By Ext.P8 dated 19/01/2012, the Board had made a demand for Rs.58,114/- after deducting Rs.6,218/- which has already been paid by the petitioner on 24/03/2010. It is submitted that the petitioner has paid Rs.15,000/- as per an interim order dated 13/02/2012 passed by this Court.

¶34

The main contention urged by the petitioner is that he was not the owner of the premises. He came in possession of the property only in 2007. Therefore, he should not have been mulcted with the liability to pay the amount since 2003. It is also contended that the connected load was only 10KW and therefore there is no obligation on the part of the petitioner to pay the short assessment bill. However, the Ombudsman came to the finding

¶35

W.P.C.No.3462/2012

¶36

¶37

that there is no material to show that the connected load was reduced from 26KW to 10KW. The Ombudsman indicated that the connected load to the premises was 25.95 KW in the name of Smt.Sahitha and the date of connection was on 21/02/2002. However, bills were raised only for the connected load with reference to 10KW.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents Board, based on the counter affidavit filed, supports the stand taken by the Ombudsman. It is stated that when an audit objection has been raised, it was noticed that the actual connected load was 25.95 KW and therefore a short assessment bill was issued. Since both the authorities have confirmed the demand, the petitioner cannot seek for any further concession in this regard.

¶39

Having regard to the contentions urged by either side and on perusal of the records, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the Ombudsman warranting interference by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is material to show that the connected load was 25.95 KW and merely for the reason that the consumer was billed at only 10KW over a period of time, does not mean that if there is any short assessment, it could not be collected by the Board.

¶40

W.P.C.No.3462/2012

¶41

¶42

Regulations clearly permit the Board to issue bills for short assessment, which cannot be disputed.

¶43

Under such circumstances, I do not find any error in the action taken by the respondent authorities in issuing Exts.P7 and P8.

¶44

However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had already remitted certain amount during the pendency of the writ petition and the petitioner was only a subsequent owner, it would be appropriate that some time is granted to the petitioner to pay the balance amount in terms of Ext.P8, without charging any interest.

¶45

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶46

i) Challenge to Exts.P7 and P8 are negatived.

¶47

ii) Petitioner is granted two months' time from today to

¶48

remit the balance amount covered by Ext.P8, after deducting the amount already paid during the pendency of the writ petition.

¶49

iii) If the amount is not paid within a period of two months, it will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶50

(sd/-)

¶51

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶52

jsr

Sri.K.Udayakumar v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.Udayakumar v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

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. Koppara Enterprises Printing & Copy Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Authorized Officer

P.B.Sreekala Vs the Authorised Officer

Vasanthi Kumari Vs the Authorised Officer

Mohanan.K. Vs the Assistant Engineer, Kseb

Murugesan Vs Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Shiji T Vs Federal Bank Ltd.