Disposed

Kitco Ltd. v. K.S.E.B

Kerala HC27 May 2016WP(C)/3951/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demand for transmission side costs for an office electricity connection. While noting that the matter was pending before the Consumer Grievance Disputes Redressal Forum, the Court granted a one-month grace period to approach the Forum and made the payment liability subject to that outcome.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted one month to approach CGDRF to challenge the demand; liability to pay demand subject to CGDRF orders.

Kitco Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B — 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

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3951 of 2013 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KITCO LTD., P B NO 1820, REVIPURAM, M G ROAD,COCHIN-682016, REP.BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN SMT.T.P.LEKSHMI VARMA SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1.KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, RESPENTED BY THE SECRETARY

¶11

2.DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, POWER HOUSE ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

3.DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTIRICITY BOARD, HMT COLONY P.O, KALAMASSERY - 683 104.

¶13

4.ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM-682025.

¶14

5.THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, KPFC BHAVAN, C V RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. R1 TO R4 BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SRI.S.SHARAN, SC BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN, SC BY SRI.ANEESH JAMES,SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON 27-05-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 3951 of 2013 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF A LETTER NO.AE-1/HT SOP/KITCO/2012-13/429 DATED 24.12.2012.

¶21

EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP.NO.13 DATED 16.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C)NO.2292 OF 2013 DATED 23.1.13.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶28

============= W.P. (C) No. 3951 of 2013

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this, the 27^th day of May, 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the

¶33

following reliefs:

¶34

“a. to direct respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith process the petitioner's application for electricity connection to the office premises at Vennala, Ernakulam, of the petitioner without insisting on the petitioner paying the sum of Rs.2,95,000/- as Transmission side costs/charges as demanded in Exhibit P1, and

¶35

b. Direct the respondents 1 to 4 to effect electricity connection to the petitioner's premises on the petitioner complying with all the present statutory requirements.”

¶36

It is submitted that when power connection was sought for, a demand has been made in terms of Ext.P1, which according to the petitioner is illegal. Petitioner submits that the Regulatory Commission had already taken a view in the matter and therefore the Board was not entitled to demand transmission side costs or other charges without computing the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Learned counsel points out that similar

¶37

W.P(C) No.3951/13

¶38

-:2:-

¶39

matters had already been referred to Consumer Grievance Disputes Redressal Forum (CGDRF). It is further submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, direction was issued to the Board to provide power connection and the demand has been stayed.

¶40

Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board.

¶41

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner intends to challenge the demand in terms of Ext.P1 before the CGDRF, I dispose of this writ petition as under:

¶42

(i) Petitioner is granted a month's time to approach the CGDRF for challenging the demand in terms of Ext.P1.

¶43

(ii) The liability to pay the demand made in terms of Ext.P1 shall be subject to the result of the orders passed by the CGDRF.

¶44

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶45

Rp27/05/2016

¶46

//True Copy//

¶47

P.S to Judge

Kitco Ltd. v. K.S.E.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kitco Ltd. v. K.S.E.B

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

C H Ali Vs the Federal Bank Limited

B. Sarathchandran Vs Davis a. Abraham

Bindu L. Vs Thiruvananthapuram Distirct Co-Operative Bank

Jeevesh Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs the Recovery Officer

P a Beefathu Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited