Disposed

Mohandas and Others v. the K.S.E.Board and Others

Kerala HC20 Oct 2016WP(C)/6886/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging revenue recovery proceedings for electricity arrears dismissed. Court held limitation does not apply where liability is admitted. Ordered revenue authorities to reconsider payable amount post-requisition date.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Direction issued to revenue authorities to consider amount payable post-requisition and adjust for payments already recovered.

Mohandas and Others Vs the K.S.E.Board and Others — 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

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6886 of 2009 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

*1. MOHANDAS, HEAD CONSTABLE 2173, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, TIRUR TALUK. (DELETED)

¶8

2. RAJAN, HEAD CONSTABLE 2205,

¶9

KALPAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, TIRUR TALUK.

¶10

3. RAMACHANDRAN, H.C.2707,

¶11

KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION, TIRUR.

¶12

4. UNNIKRISHNAN, P.C.3027,

¶13

TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR.

¶14

5. JAYAPRAKASH, HEAD CONSTABLE 2118,

¶15

KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION, TIRUR TALUK.

¶16

*** PETITIONER NO.1 DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 29/05/2014 IN I.A. NO.6665/2014.**

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

1. THE K.S.E. BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶20

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TIRUR ELECTRICAL SECTION, TIRUR.

¶21

3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), TIRUR.

¶22

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM.

¶23

5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR.

¶24

R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR SC, ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN, SC. R3 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.P. PRADEEP.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

rs.

¶27

WP(C).No. 6886 of 2009 (E)

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶30

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENTS DATED 11/04/2008.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶36

------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.6886 of 2009

¶37

----------------------------------- Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2016

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The petitioners challenge Ext.P1 communication issued by the District Police Superintendent by which direction had been issued to recover an amount of 71,908/- from the salary of six officers₹ including the petitioners.

¶40

It is stated that the aforesaid six officers were occuping the family quarters. In respect of arrears of electricity charges consumed by them, an amount of 25,512/- along with surcharge of₹ ₹46,396/- was due to the Electricity Board. As per the Thahsildar's letter dated 25.07.2008, requisition had been given to recover the said amount. In the said circumstance, direction had been issued to recover the amount from the petitioners by attachment of their salary and the Circle Inspector was directed to take necessary steps in that regard.

¶41

The main contention urged by the petitioners is that the claim made by the Electricity Board for recovering the amount in terms of the Revenue Recovery Act is barred by limitation. According to the petitioners, any amount due to the Board ought to be recovered by revenue recovery proceedings within a period of three years from the date on which the amount had become due. Insofar as it is admitted that the amount was due during the period when petitioners were occupying the premises i.e., from February

¶42

W.P.(C).No.6886 of 2009

¶43

¶44

1998 to April 2000 and additional bill had been issued as early as in July 2000, no revenue recovery proceedings ought to be issued after three years from July 2000. It is further contended that even otherwise, once the matter is referred for revenue recovery by the Electricity Board, they are not entitled to collect surcharge and therefore, the demand itself is exorbitant and bad in law.

¶45

A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board inter alia stating that an additional bill of 24,832/- was issued₹ for excess consumption noticed for the period from February 1998 to April 2000. The bill was served on the Police personnel who occupied the quarters in July 2000. Instead of remitting the same, the Police personnel remitted their regular current charge up to December 2001. Later regular payment was not made. The connection was dismantled on 20.06.2004 after issuing notice to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirur on 23.01.2003. Hence the regular spot bill arrears was accumulated with the additional bill.

¶46

As per the recommendation made by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Tirur West, R.R requisition was ordered by the District Collector on 02.09.2004 against the registered consumer, the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur. KSEB has no agreement with the petitioners and therefore they were not called upon to make any payment. The decision of recovery from the salary was taken on the basis of the order of the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram. It is also stated that an amount of 28,547/-₹

¶47

W.P.(C).No.6886 of 2009

¶48

¶49

was received by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Tirur pursuant to the revenue recovery. Further it is stated that the amount of 71,098/- is by adding the surcharge up to March 2008. ₹

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board and the learned Government Pleader.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 in order to contend that if there is any dispute regarding the correctness of the meter reading, the authorities are entitled to collect power charges not exceeding six months. As far as the case on hand is concerned, I don't think that there is any dispute regarding the liability to pay, except for the contention that the quantum is more than what is actually due.

¶52

The revenue recovery proceedings apparently had been initiated beyond the period of three years from the date when the bill had been issued. But it is relevant to note that this is a case in which the consumer is the Sub Inspector of Police, who had virtually admitted the liability. When there is an admission of liability and promise to pay, limitation will not apply to the facts of the case. By Ext.P1, an order had been issued by the District Police Superintendent to recover the amount from the salary of the petitioners in monthly instalments. This order is issued based on the Rules under which the service conditions are effected. The

¶53

W.P.(C).No.6886 of 2009

¶54

¶55

petitioners does not have a case that the Superintendent of Police has no authority to direct recovery of the amount from their salaries. That apart, part payment has already been done by way of recovery which also would show that there cannot be any bar of limitation.

¶56

In the said circumstances, I don't think that the petitioners could challenge Ext.P1 on the ground that it had been issued beyond the period of limitation. It is settled law that debt is not extinguished, whereas only the mode of recovery is barred. If the liability is admitted, necessarily, the debtor can pay the amount even after the period of limitation. The debtor in the present case is the Sub Inspector of Police, who does not dispute the liability and intends to pay the amount. Apparently on the basis of the request made by the Sub Inspector, the Superintendent of Police has also agreed to pay the amount, but by recovering the same from the defaulters who had failed to pay the amount. Under such circumstances, the bar of limitation as held by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Kalliyanikutty [1999 (2) KLT 146 (SC)] cannot be brought into force. Even otherwise when it is an admitted liability, which the debtor agrees to pay, the said judgment will not apply to the facts of the case.

¶57

Now coming to the second question, surcharge had been claimed for a period from July 2004 till March 2008. The petitioners have a case that after requisition has been made to the revenue

¶58

W.P.(C).No.6886 of 2009

¶59

¶60

authorities, no further surcharge could be imposed on the petitioner. The facts in the case would disclose that an amount of 28,547/-₹ has already been recovered. The requisition has been made to the District Collector on 02.09.2004. Therefore, there is justification on the part of the petitioners in contending that the surcharge can be imposed only up to 02.09.2004. Thereafter, only the recovery charges and other interest as per the requisition can be claimed. It is for the revenue authorities to decide on the manner in which the requisition has been made. No particulars are available before this Court to take a decision in the matter. However, it shall be open for the revenue authorities to consider whether any further amount is payable by the petitioners.

¶61

In the said circumstances, while rejecting the contention of the petitioners in regard to the plea of limitation, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction :

¶62

That the revenue authorities shall consider as to what exactly is the amount payable after the date of requisition i.e. 02.09.2004 and after adjusting all payments already recovered, the balance amount alone need be demanded in terms of the same.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶65

Mohandas and Others v. the K.S.E.Board and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohandas and Others v. the K.S.E.Board and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayanan Nair Vs Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal

The Catholic Reformation Literature Soci Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S.Amara Raja Batteries Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sundareshan Vs the Manager, District Co-Operative Bank,Thiruvananthapuram

Seena Praveen Vs the Kannur Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Aneesh A.S. Vs University of Kerala