Disposed

M/S.Jameela Panels & Veneers v. K.S.E.B

Kerala HC12 Aug 2016WP(C)/7531/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demand for unpaid electricity charges. It held that factual disputes regarding jurisdiction and constitution of authorities require trial in a proper appeal. The court set aside the revisional order and directed the respondents to place the appeal before a competent appellate authority within three months, keeping the demand in abeyan

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 set aside; respondents directed to place appeal before competent appellate authority; demand kept in abeyance; appropriate decision to be made within three months.

M/S.Jameela Panels & Veneers Vs K.S.E.B — 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

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/21ST SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7531 of 2007 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S.JAMEELA PANELS & VENEERS

¶8

REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER T.V.ISMAIL HAJI, MILL ROAD, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR-10.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

2. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE),

¶13

KSEB, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL SECTION, AZHEEKODE.

¶15

4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, APTS, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

BY PULIKOOL ABOOBECKER SC, FOR KSEb BY SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 7531 of 2007 (V)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶22

P1:	COPY OF THE BILL DT 3/3/2005 FOR RS.2,26,800/- ISSUED BY THE R2.
P2:	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT 10/3/2005 FILED BEFORE THE R2.
P3:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 16/3/2005 IN WPC BNO. 8731/2005 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
P4:	COPY OF THE LETTER DT 2/4/2005 ALONG WITH THE REVISED BILL FOR RS 70,100/-.
P5:	COPY OF THE APPEAL DT 5/4/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R4.
P6:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 24/1/2007 ISSUED BY THE R4.
P7:	COPY OF THE ORDER SANCTIONING ADDITIONAL POWER ALLOCATION OF 137 KW DT /4/2003.
P8:	COPY OF THE ORDER DT 303/2004 ISSUED BY ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KANNUR.
P9:	COPY OF THE LETTER DT 01/02/2005 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R3.
P10:	COPY OF THE ORDER DT 25/5/2005 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KANNUR.
P11(A):	COPY OF THE MONTHLY BILL FOR DECEMBER 2004.
P11(B):	COPY OF THE MONTHLY BILL FOR JANUARY 2005.
P11(C):	COPY OF THE MONTHLY BILL FOR FEBRUARY 2005.
P11(D):	COPY OF THE MONTHLY BILL FOR JUNE 2005.
P11(E):	COPY OF THE MONTHLY BILL FOR JULY 2005.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶28

W.P.(C).No.7531 of 2007

¶29

Dated this, the 12^th day of August, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P6. Ext.P4 is a revised additional bill issued to the petitioner by the Special Officer (Revenue) calling upon the petitioner to remit an amount of ₹70,100/- being the balance of a revised invoice for 1,70,100/-. The₹ bill came to be issued on the allegation that the petitioner used unauthorised additional load to the extent of 59.13 KW. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, who by Ext.P6 order dated 24.01.2007 confirmed the demand.

¶32

The petitioner raises two specific contentions. One is that the Special Officer (Revenue) has no jurisdiction in the matter and secondly, the appellate authority was not properly constituted. Further it is contended that the petitioner had applied for additional load and though the Board had sanctioned the same, they were waiting for energising and in the meantime, the inspection was conducted by the Board Officials.

¶33

Under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the competent officer who can issue the final bill is the Assistant Engineer of the concerned section as notified by the Government. According to the petitioner, the bills had been issued by a Special Officer, who has no jurisdiction in the

¶34

W.P.(C).No.7531 of 2007

¶35

¶36

matter. Still further the appellate authority was not constituted in terms with Section 127 of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and therefore though an appeal was filed, the same was considered without any jurisdiction. Other factual contentions have also been raised.

¶37

No counter affidavit has been filed in the case. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits that insofar as the petitioner himself has preferred the appeal, he cannot take a contention regarding the jurisdiction of the appellate authority nor take a different contention regarding the validity of the appellate order, or that the Special Officer has no jurisdiction to issue such an order.

¶38

There is no dispute about the fact that in terms of Section 126 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to be an officer of the State Government or Board or Licensee designated as such by the State Government. As per SRO No.229/2005, the Assistant Engineer is designated as the Assessing Officer by the Government. The question is whether the Special Officer has any authority or he is a person designated by the Government or the Board as the case may be. Since no such facts are brought to the notice of this Court, it may not be possible for this Court to decide on such issues. Further the Division Bench of this Court in Mohamed Haji v. Kerala State Electricity Board [2014 (3) KLT 706] held that the Government

¶39

W.P.(C).No.7531 of 2007

¶40

¶41

had not constituted the appellate authority in terms with Section 127 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Thereafter, orders had been issued to constitute the appellate authority and it was further mentioned that all pending appeals were to be transferred to the appellate authority.

¶42

Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual situation, I am of the view that the factual issues raised by the petitioner also requires to be considered in a properly constituted appeal and the same has to be decided by the competent authority.

¶43

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under : Ext.P6 is set aside and the respondents are directed to place the appeal filed by the petitioner before the competent appellate authority and the said authority shall, after hearing the petitioner, take an appropriate decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until such time, demand, if any, shall be kept in abeyance.

¶44

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶45

M/S.Jameela Panels & Veneers v. K.S.E.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Jameela Panels & Veneers v. K.S.E.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivakumar Vs the Authorised Officer

Transformers and Electricals Kerala Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Nimmi John Chackola Vs the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin

T.Shyma Vs Income Tax Officer

T.P.Balan Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Jose K.T Vs State of Kerala