Disposed

Bharati Infratel Ventures Ltd. v. Corporation of Thrissur

Kerala HC23 Jun 2016WP(C)/5958/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a final electricity assessment order. Instead of adjudicating the factual dispute, the Court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the competent appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and kept the demand in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted four weeks to prefer appeal; appellate authority to decide within three months; balance demand kept in abeyance.

Bharati Infratel Ventures Ltd. Vs Corporation of Thrissur — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 5958 of 2012 (T) ---------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

BHARATI INFRATEL VENTURES LTD. (DEMERGED FROM BHARATI AIRTEL LTD), REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR, HEAD-LEGAL (KERALA), INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, VANKARATH TOWERS, 8TH FLOOR, N.H.BYEPASS, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM - 682 024. BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.T.M.BINITHA

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

1. CORPORATION OF THRISSUR M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

2. THE ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT OF THRISSUR CORPORATION M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT SECRETARY.

¶10

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER SECTION 4, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION - 680 001. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SRI.V.N.HARIDAS

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

msv/

¶13

WP(C).No. 5958 of 2012 (T)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶16

------------------------

¶17

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.8097/11 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 30.11.2011 WITH TRANSLATION.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF SITE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH TRANSLATION.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CALCULATION SHEET ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH TRANSLATION.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.1.2012 WITH TRANSLATION.

¶21

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.2.2012.

¶22

EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION OF REGULATION ISSUED BY ASSISTANT REGISTRARS OF COMPANIES, NCT OF DELHI AND HARYANA DTD.9.6.2005.

¶23

EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE FRESH CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, DELHI DTD.24.4.2006.

¶24

EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CP. 233/2007 DTD.26.11.2007.

¶25

EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CP. 324/2009 DTD.29.3.2011.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR DTD.20.11.2011.

¶28

EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.6.1.2012 BEARING NO.EW3 4301/11 ISSUED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER ALONG WITH PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.18.1.2012 BEARING NO.EW3 4301/11 ISSUED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH FINAL ASSESSMENT.

¶30

EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE DISCONNECTION NOTICE DTD.4.2.2012 BEARING NO.EW3 4301/11 & EW4 8097/11 ISSUED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER TO THE PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶35

============= W.P. (C) No. 5958 of 2012

¶36

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

¶37

Dated this, the 23^rd day of June, 2016

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order by which final assessment

¶40

has been made alleging unauthorised consumption of electricity. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to prefer appeal before the competent authority. In view of the fact that the order is passed invoking Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, an appeal can be preferred to the appellate authority as provided under Section 127 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had requested for details from the Corporation regarding the appellate authority, but information was not given at the relevant time. Petitioner seeks to prefer an appeal against the aforesaid final bill. By virtue of an interim order passed, petitioner had already remitted `3 lakhs.

¶41

Though the matter had been pending before this Court

¶42

for quite a long time, taking into account the factual disputes raised by the petitioner, I am of the view that it will be appropriate that the matter is heard by the appellate authority,

¶43

W.P(C) No.5958/12

¶44

-:2:-

¶45

who could go into the factual details of the contentions urged and decide the matter.

¶46

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under;

¶47

(i) Petitioner is granted four weeks' time to prefer an appeal against Ext.P3 final assessment.

¶48

(ii) If the said appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months thereof.

¶49

(iii) Until disposal of the matter, the demand for the balance amount shall be kept in abeyance.

¶50

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶51

Rp23/06/2016

¶52

//True Copy//

¶53

P.S to Judge

Bharati Infratel Ventures Ltd. v. Corporation of Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharati Infratel Ventures Ltd. v. Corporation of Thrissur

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

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

A.R.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Suneesh Kumar Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Thechief Manager, Malappuram Vs Roshi K.K

Pushparajan Vs State of Kerala