Dismissed

Ezhupunna North Coir Co.Op.Society v. Asst.Engineer

Kerala HC14 Mar 2016WP(C)/6558/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a coir co-operative society, challenged electricity demand notices and revenue recovery proceedings alleging the power supplier failed to disconnect the lines after a disconnection request. The court dismissed the writ petition for lack of proof that the disconnection request notice was actually served on the Electricity Board.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ezhupunna North Coir Co.Op.Society Vs Asst.Engineer — 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

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/24TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 6558 of 2005 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

THE EZHUPUNNA NORTH COIR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., ERAMLLORE P.O., EZHUPUNNA,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶12

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E.B.,

¶13

KUTHIATHODU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, STATE SECRETARIAT,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.REJI THOMAS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C).NO.6558/2005

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1 COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE LEDGER OF THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES UP TO JUNE, 1996.

¶24

P2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.16/96 DATED 12/2/1996 ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENTS.

¶25

P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.DB.21/04-05 DATED 30/6/2004

¶26

P4 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 27/7/04

¶27

P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.21/04 DATED 16/09/04

¶28

P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL AND ITS COMPANION SCHEDULE DATED 7/2/2005

¶29

P7 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19/2/2005.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶36

======================== W.P.(C). No.6558 of 2005

¶37

¶38

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P3, P5 and P6 and for a declaration that the respondents cannot resort to revenue recovery proceedings demanding dues from the petitioner.

¶41

Short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, a Co-operative Society was engaged in the manufacturing of coir. It is stated that it became a sick industrial unit and later started diversification and applied for electricity connection. The new venture also culminated in heavy loss and the unit was closed in the year 1995.

¶42

It is stated that bills were issued for electricity charges upto 1996 which were paid by the petitioner. Later, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 letter dated nil in February 1996, requesting for dismantling the connection. It is stated that without dismantling the connection, the respondents proceeded to issue bills and the demand was made on 30.6.2004 for an amount of 26,504/-. This₹ was followed by Ext.P5 notice demanding 45,060/-, wherein₹ claim was made for fixed charges from July, 1997 to October,

¶43

W.P.C. No. 6558 of 2005 -2-

¶44

2001 and surcharge upto September 2004. When the amount was not paid, the same was followed by Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice.

¶45

It is stated that, when the petitioner had requested for dismantling the connection as early as in February 1996, there was no reason to demand electricity charges or surcharge beyond the said period.

¶46

Statement has been filed by the second respondent inter alia stating that they were not in receipt of Ext.P2 and it is a fabricated document. Counter affidavit is also filed by the first respondent raising similar contentions. It is stated that the defaulted payment of electricity charges from July 1996 till October, 2001 has accumulated to 27,506/-. It is further stated₹ that when there was delay in payment of the amount and revenue recovery proceedings were initiated in terms of Ext.P6 as per Regulation 15(d) of Conditions of Supply.

¶47

The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that, having submitted Ext.P2, the Electricity Board ought to have dismantled the electricity connection and they could not have demanded any charges in the said bill, nor any surcharge as well.

¶48

W.P.C. No. 6558 of 2005 -3-

¶49

But the second respondent has taken a contention that they have not received Ext.P2. In the said circumstance, when it is apparent that disputed question of facts has been raised in the case, it may not be possible for this Court to adjudicate the service of Ext.P2 or not.

¶50

In the said circumstance, in the absence of any material to show that Ext.P2 was served on the Electricity Board, the contention of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Consequently, the demand made is justified and the claim to quash Exts.P3, P5 and P6 cannot be sustained.

¶51

In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.

¶52

sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶53

kp/-16.3.16

Ezhupunna North Coir Co.Op.Society v. Asst.Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ezhupunna North Coir Co.Op.Society v. Asst.Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jose V.S. Vs Mini Manoj

K.M.Daniel Vs Dr. Vishwas

John Mathew Vs Dr.Rajan Khobragade

Kerala State Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs V.P. Thrimathy

Neerolpan Valeed Vs the Intelligence Officer (Ib)

V.M.Latha Vs the Deputy Director