Dismissed

Ugin Papli v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.

Kerala HC17 Aug 2016WP(C)/5954/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a confirmed electricity demand of Rs.1,83,052 on grounds of alleged meter tampering. Finding that the mahazar averred meter manipulation and the appellate authority confirmed the demand, the Court held that without evidence of error, the impugned orders could not be interfered with.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned Appeal Order dated 19.7.2008 and related proceedings affirmed.

Ugin Papli Vs Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors. — 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 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/26TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5954 of 2009 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

UGIN PAPLI, AYYAPPANKAVU EAST ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -18.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, POWER HOUSE ROAD,, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -18.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CENTRAL SECTION ERNAKULAM.

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL, CENTRAL SECTION, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA-KSEB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.V.

¶17

WP(C)5954 OF 2009

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)'EXHIBITS

¶20

P1: COPY OF THE BILL NO R55460326942 DATED 11-10-2007 ISSSUED BY SR SUPERINTENDANT, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL CIRCLE KERALE STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD.

¶21

P2: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 15/10/2007 PREPARED BY ASST ENGINEER,APTS.ERNAKULAM.

¶22

P3: COPY OF THE PROVISIOANL INVOICE NO R55460000179 DATED 16/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶23

P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO 5546010834 DATED 16-10-2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶24

P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 24.10.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED NIL OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

P7: COPY OF THE DATED 25.01.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

P8: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO GB/387/2008/2286 DATED 19.7.2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

K.V.

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.5954 of 2009

¶33

Dated this the 17^th day of August 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner challenges Exts.P6 and P8 by which the Assistant Engineer had confirmed the demand of Rs.1,83,052/on the ground that there had been short assessment on account of tampering of meter. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which came to be rejected as per Ext.P8 order dated 19/07/2016.

¶36

The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that Anti Power Theft Squad had conducted an inspection in the premises of the petitioner on 15/10/2007. They prepared Ext.P2 mahazer, in which it is stated that there was tampering of the meter and taking into consideration the possible power that might have been utilised for the connected load, an assessment has been made. Perusal of Ext.P6 proceeding and Ext.P8 appellate order would indicate that the authorities had considered the entire issues and had confirmed the finding.

¶37

W.P.C.No.5954/ 2009

¶38

¶39

Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not tampered with the meter, it could be seen from the averments made in the mahazar itself that there had been manipulation of the meter, as a result of which, the meter was not showing the correct reading. When the demand had been made based on such finding of fact, it is not open for this Court to sit in judgment over the same. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any error in the demand made, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

¶40

This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶41

(sd/-)

¶42

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶43

jsr

Ugin Papli v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ugin Papli v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.

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

Kunjaisha Vs the Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank Limited

Binu .S Vs Bank of Baroda

High Range Dairy Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

The Vallapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer(Tds), Palakkad

K.P.Krishna Menon Vs State of Kerala

N.C.Abdul Kareem Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.