Disposed

M/S.T.v.Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. v. the Kerala State Electricity Board,Triva

Kerala HC24 Jun 2016WP(C)/5479/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging consumer categorization and demanding refunds. Instead of deciding merits, it directed the fourth respondent to decide the pending appeal within two months or transfer the file to the competent appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003.

What did the court decide?

Direction to fourth respondent to consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders within two months or transfer the file to the competent appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2

M/S.T.v.Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. Vs the 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

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5479 of 2007 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S. T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (M&M - SBU), 216/217, PUTHENTHURA POST, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM-691 588.

¶8

BY SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.UMA GOPINATH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOLLAM.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CHAVARA-691 583.

¶13

4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL & TARIFF), VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY ADV. S SHARAN, SC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 5479 of 2007 (B)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 11/03/2002.

¶21

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 24/04/2002.

¶22

EXT.P2A COPY OF THE BILL DATED 19/04/2002 OF THE THIR RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/05/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 30/05/2002.

¶25

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/05/2002 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE ORDER OF HE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 01/02/2007.

¶27

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 06/02/2007.

¶28

EXT.P8 COPY OF THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15/02/2007.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶30

EXT.R1A COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 30/07/1988.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

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

W.P.(C) No.5479 of 2007

¶37

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

¶38

Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2016

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶41

(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and quash Exts.P2(a), P6 and P7.

¶42

(ii) To declare that the petitioner is to be categorised only as a LT IV customer and not as a LT-VII-A consumer.

¶43

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1,03,486/- paid pursuant to additional bill evidenced by Ext.P2(a).

¶44

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to direct the fourth respondent to consider the appeal evidenced by Ext.P8 and dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶45

(v) To stay all further proceedings pursuant to the demands made in Exthibits P1, P2 and P7 .

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner, now seeks for a

¶47

direction to the 4^th respondent to dispose of the appeal pending as Ext.P8. In fact recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance by an interim order dated 21.02.07 on condition that the petitioner shall remit 50% of the amount demanded. It was further observed that in the event of dismissal of the writ petition, the amount could be

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 5479/2007 - : 2 :-

¶49

adjusted towards penal interest, the accrued interest and thereafter adjusted towards the principal amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner only seeks for a direction to dispose of Ext.P8 within a time frame.

¶50

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent inter alia contended that the bill was issued, when it was found that the petitioner was using the power connection for commercial purposes. However, I do not intend to consider the matter on merits, in view of the pendency of the appeal before the 4^th respondent. It would suffice that a direction is issued to the 4^th respondent to dispose of the appeal within a time frame.

¶51

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as thereunder.

¶52

(i) The 4^th respondent shall consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

(ii) If any other appellate authority is constituted, the file in connection with Ext.P8 may be transferred to the competent appellate authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003.

¶54

W.P.(C) No. 5479/2007 - : 3 :-

¶55

(iii) The amount paid by the petitioner as per the interim direction issued by this Court shall be adjusted towards the pending bills and shall be subject to further orders by the appellate authority.

Sd/-

A.M.Shaffique,

Judge

al/-

True copy

P.S to Judge

M/S.T.v.Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. v. the Kerala State Electricity Board,Triva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.T.v.Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. v. the Kerala State Electricity Board,Triva

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

V.K.Pushkaran Vs Asst. Engineer, K.S.E.B.

Thechief Manager, Malappuram Vs Roshi K.K

Bharati Infratel Ventures Ltd. Vs Corporation of Thrissur

Manrothuruth Grama Panchayat Vs Kseb

Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Lokrakshaka Society Vs the Assistant Engineer