Allowed

A.R.Chandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jun 2016WP(C)/4190/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging electricity bills under minimum guarantee, the Court held that the petitioner was discharged from minimum guarantee liability upon prior interim payment. It directed the petitioner to seek exemption from power charges from the Agricultural Officer and barred the Board from claiming any interest.

What did the court decide?

Minimum guarantee amount declared paid and discharged; petitioner directed to seek power charge exemption from Agricultural Officer; interest liability barred.

A.R.Chandran Vs State of Kerala — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4190 of 2009 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

*A.R.CHANDRAN, S/O.APPU, AGED 68 YEARS, MELSOM, POLPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD. (DIED)

¶8

*LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF PETITIONER

¶9

*Addl. P2. YASODHA.V., W/O.(LATE) A.R.CHANDRAN, MELSOM, POLPULLY PO., PALAKKAD.

¶10

*Addl.P3. MANEESHA, D/O.(LATE) A.R.CHANDRAN, MELSOM, POLPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶11

*ADDITIONAL PETITIONER 2 AND 3 IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 20/12/2014 IN IA.NO.17426/2014.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POWER (B) DEPARTMENT,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

2. K.S.E.B THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

3. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHITTOOR,

PALAKKAD.

2/-

-2-

WP(C).NO.4190/2009

¶23

5. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, POLPULLY KRISHI BHAVAN, PALAKKAD.

¶24

R1, R3 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH R2 & R4 BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB SRI.S.SHARAN,SC,K.S.E.BOARD

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

sts

¶27

WP(C).NO.4190/2009

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶30

P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶31

P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06/08/2008

¶32

P3 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16/09/2008

¶33

P4 COPY OF THE REPLY OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20/09/2008

¶34

P5 COPY OF THE FURTHER REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/09/2008 TO THE AUTHORITY

¶35

P6 CPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/01/2009.

¶36

P7 COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THIS IMPLEADING PETITIONER'S HUSBAND.

¶37

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:

¶38

ANNEX 1 COPY OF THE MINIMUM GUARANTEE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶43

------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.4190 of 2009

¶44

----------------------------------- Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P2, P4 and P6 by which certain demands had been made by the Board for minimum guarantee as well as power charges along with interest.

¶47

The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner claims to be an agriculturist, who has 3.5 acres of paddy field. According to him, for installing an electric motor, he had applied for power connection and the power connection was granted as early as in the year 2003. No bills were raised. However, by Ext.P2, he is called upon to pay an amount of 46,622/-₹ with other charges on or before 21.08.2008. The petitioner submitted a representation. However, the demand was repeated by another notice, Ext.P4 dated 20.09.2008, demanding 94,698/-.₹ Again a representation was submitted stating that the petitioner has no obligation to pay any charges as the power charges are subsidised by the Government and the Government has to pay power charges, if any. Still further, the petitioner was faced with another notice dated 20.01.2009 as Ext.P6 wherein demand has been made for an amount of 94,778/-. At this stage, the petitioner₹ has approached this Court.

¶48

W.P.(C).No.4190 of 2009

¶49

¶50

An interim order dated 17.02.2009 had been passed by this Court staying the disconnection on condition that the petitioner remits 20,000/-. According to the petitioner, the said amount had₹ been deposited. In the meantime, the petitioner had expired and the legal heirs had been impleaded as additional petitioners.

¶51

A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent

¶52

inter alia stating that the power connection was given to the petitioner on a minimum guarantee agreement executed as Annexure I. As per the agreement, the petitioner is liable to pay the minimum charges of 11,165/- over a period of seven years. The₹ minimum amount to be remitted per month was 931/- and since₹ bimonthly bills were being issued, an amount of 1,902/- ought to₹ have been remitted with the requisite meter rent. No such payment had been effected. That apart, the petitioner had not obtained any exemption from the concerned Agricultural Officer. It is stated that since the petitioner has been supplied power on a minimum guarantee, he is not entitled to get the benefit of Government Order.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board. It is evident from the factual circumstances involved in the matter that the petitioner was liable to pay the minimum guarantee amount as it is covered by an agreement between the parties. Apparently, the said

¶54

W.P.(C).No.4190 of 2009

¶55

¶56

amount was not paid. Therefore, there was nothing wrong on the part of the Board to have demanded the minimum guarantee amount of 11,165/-. At any rate, on account of the payment of₹ ₹20,000/- already made by the petitioner, the said amount had been fully paid and discharged. I don't think that the Board is entitled to demand any interest on the minimum guarantee amount especially from an agriculturist.

¶57

The next question is regarding the power charges. The Board had taken a view that in the list of agriculturists given by the Agricultural Officer, the petitioner's name is not included and therefore, he is not entitled for any exemption from payment of electricity charges. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an agriculturist having paddy cultivation and as per the Government Order, he is entitled for waiver of electricity charges.

¶58

The eligibility of the petitioner for exemption, however, is a matter to be considered by the Agricultural Officer taking into account the concerned Government Order. The contention of the Board that being a minimum guarantee consumer, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the Government Order cannot be sustained. In so far as power is being utilised for agricultural purposes, the petitioner necessarily will have to be reckoned as a person entitled for the benefit of the Government Order by which

¶59

W.P.(C).No.4190 of 2009

¶60

¶61

exemption is granted from payment of power charges.

¶62

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of as under :

¶63

It is declared that on payment of 20,000/-, the₹ minimum guarantee amount is fully paid and discharged by the petitioner.

¶64

The petitioner shall approach the Agricultural Officer concerned and seek for necessary directions to exempt from payment of power charges. The Officer shall consider the same and issue necessary instructions to the respondent Board in that regard.

¶65

If any such order is issued by the Agricultural Officer exempting the petitioner from paying energy charges, the petitioner shall not have any obligation to pay any power charges as demanded by the Board and necessary adjustments shall be made by the Board in that regard.

¶66

If the petitioner is unable to obtain any such direction, the petitioner will be under obligation to pay the power charges as demanded by the Board, for which necessary bills may be raised.

¶67

W.P.(C).No.4190 of 2009

¶68

¶69

However, the petitioner shall not be mulcted with any liability for payment of interest as claimed by the Board. Only the power charges shall be demanded from the petitioner.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶72

A.R.Chandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.R.Chandran v. State of Kerala

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

M/S.Shreyas (Ernakulam) Vs State Bank of Travancore

Union Bank of India Vs S. Sudheerdas

S.Anil Kumar Vs Authorized Officer, Tamil Mercantile Bank Ltd.

The Kerala State Cashew Evelopment Corp. Vs Labour Court,Kollam

Suneesh Kumar Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S.Arjun Associates Vs the Authorized Officer & Area Manager