Allowed

Mohanan.K. v. the Assistant Engineer, Kseb

Kerala HC26 Jul 2016WP(C)/4421/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, dealing with writ petitions by a petitioner against bills issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board for alleged unauthorised connected load, relied on the Apex Court judgment in Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. The court directed authorities to revise the bills in statutory format and reserved liberty for the Board to issue a proper provisional bill. Payments made

What did the court decide?

Impugned bills set aside. Liberty reserved to Board to issue appropriate provisional bill and take proceedings under Section 126. Amounts paid adjusted.

Mohanan.K. Vs the Assistant Engineer, Kseb — Consumer Protection | 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. 4421 of 2009 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

MOHANAN.K, S/O. KUNHIKRISHNAN, KEERTHI HOUSE, KARIPAYI ROAD, NORTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.V.BIPIN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KALAMASSERY.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVSION, KALAMASSERY.

¶12

3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

5. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM,SENIOR ADVOCATE

¶16

ADVS. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB

¶17

SRI.S.SHARAN,SC,K.S.E.BOARD R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2016,ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.4484/2009 AND WP(C).NO.7626/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C).NO.4421/2009

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1 COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS.1,80,000/- TOWARDS THE PAYMENT FOR INSTALMENT OF TRANSFORMER.

¶24

P2 COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶25

P3 COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF AMOUNT FOR OYSC APPLICATION DATED 25/4/2008

¶26

P4 COPY OF THE BILL DATED 6/1/2009

¶27

P4(A) COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF THE EXT.P4 BILL AMOUNT.

¶28

P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8/1/2009

¶29

P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/1/2009

¶30

P7 COPY OF THE DEMAND DATED 19/1/2009 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.Nos.4421, 4484

¶36

¶37

7626 of 2009

¶38

Dated this the 26^th day of July 2016

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ

¶41

petitions, these are heard and decided together.

¶42

Petitioners were faced with bill amounts by which the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') had called upon the petitioners to pay penalty on the allegation that there is unauthorised connected load.

¶43

This issue is substantially covered by the judgment of

¶44

the Apex Court in Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill [(2012) 2 SCC 108]. Now, the usage of additional connected load would also come under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After issuing a provisional bill, the Assistant Engineer concerned will have to consider the objection of the consumer and issue a final bill. Petitioners could also avail an opportunity to prefer appeal under Section 127 of the Act, if so advised.

¶45

W.P.C.Nos.4421/2009 & connected cases 2

¶46

Taking into consideration the fact that the bills in question, which are impugned herein, have not been issued pursuant to Section 126 of the Act, it would be appropriate for the authorities to revise the bills, in accordance with the statutory format as declared by the Apex Court, and thereafter made a demand.

¶47

Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of as under: i) The impugned bills are set aside, however, reserving liberty to the respondent/Board to issue appropriate provisional bill for the additional connected load and thereafter to take appropriate proceedings under Section 126 of the Act.

¶48

ii) The amount, if any, already paid by the petitioners shall be adjusted towards the amount payable.

¶49

(sd/-)

¶50

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶51

jsr

Mohanan.K. v. the Assistant Engineer, Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan.K. v. the Assistant Engineer, Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Sri.K.Udayakumar Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Murugesan Vs Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Shiji T Vs Federal Bank Ltd.