Partly allowed

C.Sasidharan Pillai v. Kseb

Kerala HC13 Jul 2016WP(C)/9212/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes a demand notice for recovering arrears of power charges from the petitioner. The court held that recovery should be effected by selling the specific property with the electricity connection rather than attaching the petitioner's other properties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand notice (Ext.P9) is quashed. Proceeding for recovery by sale of the property holding the meter is permitted subject to serving notice on the petitioner and subsequent owners.

C.Sasidharan Pillai Vs Kseb — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2016/22ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9212 of 2016 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

C.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, SYAMA HOLLOW BRICKS, RESIDING AT SASI MANDHIRAM, KARIKKAL MURI, PUTHUR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL DIVISION, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 506.

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PUTHUR, PUTHUR P.O., KOTTARAKARA , KOLLAM - 691 507.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERRY P.O., KOLLAM - 691 013.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR,

¶15

TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 506.

¶16

SMT. SANTHAMMA,W/O. RAMAN PILLAI, RAMA VILASAM,THEKKUMPURAM, PUTHUR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 507.

¶17

SRI BABU DANIEL, S/O. DANIEL, THAMARAMVILA VEEDU, KARICKAL MURI, KARIMPINPUZHA P.O., PUTHUR, KOLLAM - PIN 691 513.

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD R4 & R5 BY ADV. SMT. LILLY K.T., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Skk

¶21

WP(C).No. 9212 of 2016 (B)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶24

------------------- EXHIBIT P1	----- :	---------- THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24/05/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 4231/2012 DATED 20/11/2012 OF KOTTARAKKARA PRINCIPAL SUB REGISTRY
EXHIBIT P3	:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26/11/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/08/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/01/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/11/2015 SENT BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P7	:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/11/2015 SENT BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P8	:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27/01/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9	:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.D2-6291/14 DATED 02/02/2016 UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------

¶26

//TRUE COPY//

¶27

P.A. TO JUDGE SKK

¶28

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶29

------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9212 of 2016

¶30

Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Petitioner challenges Ext.P9 by which his property is sought to be attached for recovering an amount of Rs.49,776/being arrears of power charges. According to the petitioner, he was the owner in possession of the property, where there was a power connection with Consumer No.15788. He was running a Hollow Bricks Unit in 20.23 Ares of property situated in Re-Sy.No.348/8/5 in Block No.1 of Pavithreswaram Village. It is stated that the petitioner sold the property to the sixth respondent as per Sale Deed No.1960/2012 dated 24.5.2012. The sixth respondent sold the property to the seventh respondent as per Sale Deed No. 4231/2012 dated 20.11.2012. According to the petitioner, the power connection was later dismantled, since the seventh respondent did not remit the charges. It is stated that the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged dues and therefore the demand is

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 9212 of 2016

¶34

-2-

¶35

illegal.

¶36

2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

¶37

respondents 1 to 4 on instructions would submit that the petitioner had entered into a minimum guarantee agreement with the Board and by virtue of the same, since there was arrears of electricity charges, the amount had been demanded from the petitioner. It is stated that the minimum guarantee amount was remaining pending since January, 2013 and the power connection was dismantled on 19.10.2013. It is stated that since the petitioner is the consumer, demand notice had been issued to him. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the Board was not aware of the sale being effected in favour of respondents 6 and 7.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, I do not think that in the nature of the order to be passed, any notice is to be issued to respondents

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 9212 of 2016

¶40

-3-

¶41

6 and 7.

¶42

4. There is no dispute about the fact that the amounts

¶43

due to the Kerala State Electricity Board can be recovered as arrears of land revenue by resorting to the procedure under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. That apart, as per the Regulations which are applicable, the property of the consumer is a first charge on the property as far as the electricity dues are concerned. Even if, there is a transfer of property, it is always open for the Board through the revenue authorities to recover the amount by sale of the property which is the subject matter in the issue.

¶44

In the said circumstances, I am of the view that there is no necessity to recover the amount from the petitioner personally by attaching his other properties, whereas it is always open for the revenue authorities to recover the amount by sale of the property, to which the power connection had been granted.

¶45

Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual situation,

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 9212 of 2016

¶47

-4-

¶48

this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶49

(i) Ext.P9 is quashed.

¶50

(ii) Respondents 1 to 5 is at liberty to take appropriate

¶51

proceedings for recovering the amount by sale of the property,

¶52

to which the power connection had been granted.

¶53

(iii) Any proceedings shall be taken after notice to the

¶54

petitioner and respondents 6 and 7.

¶55

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

Scl/13.07.2016

C.Sasidharan Pillai v. Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Sasidharan Pillai v. Kseb

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

Komalam Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Pathummakkutty. M. Vs Senior Superintendent

C.Najeeb Vs K.S.E.B

Michael M.Joseph Vs Anilkumar

Santhoshkumar Vs State of Kerala

India Telecom Infra Ltd. Vs Kseb