Disposed

Mujeeb Rahman v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC2 Jun 2016WP(C)/763/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A cable TV operator challenged pole rental demands by the Kerala State Electricity Board in a writ petition. The Court held the dispute is contractual and factual, not suitable for writ jurisdiction, reserved civil court rights, and granted time to execute an agreement.

What did the court decide?

Granted three weeks' time to execute an agreement with the Board; reserved the petitioner's right to approach the civil court.

Mujeeb Rahman Vs the Kerala State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/12TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 763 of 2016 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGED 39, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, NADUVILAKALATHIL HOUSE, NILAMBUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 329. BY ADVS.SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.K.H.ANSAR

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDHYUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 695 001.

¶10

2. THE SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION), THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDHYUDHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 756.

¶12

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL SECTION, VANIYAMBALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 756.

¶13

5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL SECTION, KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 751.

¶14

BY SRI.JAICE JACOB, SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 763 of 2016 (U)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1:TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 08.08.2014 IN PLP 6639/2013

¶21

P2:TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER (FTD) NO.2456/2014 (LA II ASIANET /PLP 6639/2013) DATED 19.09.2014

¶22

P3:TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER BEARING BO.(CMD) NO.3446/2014 (D(D&S) DS/CTV/4373/2014 DATED 31.12.2014

¶23

P4:TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.04.2015 ALONG WITH THE CALCULATION STATEMENT ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE POLES UNDER THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶24

P4 A:TRUE COPY OF THE REMAINING DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.04.2015 ALONG WITH THE CALCULATION STATEMENT ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE POLES UNDER THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶25

P5:TRUE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DEMAND DATED 07.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DEMANDING RS.2,96,824/-

¶26

P6:TRUE COPY OF THE AFORESAID NOTICE BEARING NO.DB/CABLE TV/ 2015-16/1008 DTD.10.2.2016.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶28

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

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶34

W.P.(C) No.763 of 2016

¶35

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner is a cable T.V. Operator, who has approached this Court with reference to certain contractual aspects with Kerala State Electricity Board. The fact involved in this case is that the petitioner had obtained the permission from Kerala State Electricity Board for drawing cables through 76 poles during 1.4.2011 onwards. According to the petitioner, he was paying rental charges as well.

¶38

There arose some dispute between the Asianet Satellite Communication and the Board with reference to the demand for charges which resulted in Ext.P1 award. The petitioner submits that subsequent to the said award, demands came to be made by the Board in terms of board order dated 31.12.2014. According to the petitioner, he had drawn cables with reference to another 291 poles, for which authorisiation is pending consideration by the Board. In the meanwhile the

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 763 of 2016

¶40

-2-

¶41

petitioner is served with Ext.P4 by which he was called upon to remit the rental charges and the service tax at the rate of 2.36% as shown in the calculation statement on or before 30.4.2015. Pole rental charges had been demanded for the period during 4/2011 to 12/2014. The petitioner is also served with a demand for an amount of Rs.2,96,824/- and the number of poles is shown as 367.

¶42

The petitioner submits that he has no obligation to pay the said amount and if at all any amount can be claimed, it can be claimed only from 2015 and the Board is not entitled to make any demand prior to the said date. Ext.P1 order, in which it is stated that the amounts are claimed from Asianet only from 2015 and the same method should be adopted as far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶43

In fact such issues cannot be decided by this Court in a writ petition under 226 of the Constitution of India. The power exercised by the Board by permitting the third parties to draw cables through electricity poles is not a statutory power

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 763 of 2016

¶45

-3-

¶46

nor is the arrangement between the petitioner and the Board,

¶47

statutory in nature. It is just a private arrangement between the Board and the petitioner. The petitioner submits that they have not drawn cables through the number of poles as mentioned in Ext.P5 during 2011 whereas demand is being made from the said date. It is apparent from the issues itself that the said question of fact cannot be decided by this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy of the petitioner is only to approach the civil court for necessary reliefs.

¶48

That apart, if the petitioner wants to continue to draw cables or maintain them necessarily the petitioner will have to comply with the demand made, otherwise the petitioner will have to dismantle the cable from the poles and make alternate arrangements. I do not think that this is a case where this Court can interfere with the demand made in term of Ext.P5.

¶49

In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 763 of 2016

¶51

-4-

¶52

as under:

¶53

(i) The petitioner is granted three weeks' time to

¶54

execute necessary agreement with the Board with reference to drawing of cables after paying the amount as demanded by the Board.

¶55

(ii) If the agreement is not executed, it shall be open for the Board to take appropriate proceedings in accordance

¶56

with law.

¶57

(iii) Petitioner's right to approach the civil court is

¶58

reserved.

¶59

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

Scl/3.06.2016

Mujeeb Rahman v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb Rahman v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

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

Viveka Essence Mart Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M.V. Sarasamma Vs Vijayaamma

Smt.Chachuykutty Thomas Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise

Ratnamma D Vs Sreemandiram Sasikumar

Joseph Francis Xavier Vs the Executive Engineer, Kseb

M/S.M.M. Marketing Vs Assistant Commissioner