Allowed

Dr.P.M.Manojan v. the Fdeputy Chief Engineer

Kerala HC1 Jul 2016WP(C)/9866/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a demand bill for unauthorised load. The Court held that the Electricity Board could not ignore the appellate authority's order regarding revised billing based on sanctioned load and quashed the unsupported demand bill.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P6 bill for unauthorised load is set aside; excess amount paid, if any, shall be adjusted towards future bills.

Dr.P.M.Manojan Vs the Fdeputy Chief Engineer — 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

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2016/10TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9866 of 2013 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DR.P.M.MANOJAN,

¶8

14/297 E, SANKALP, SADANANDA PAI ROAD, THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE FDEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE OFFICE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KANNUR-670 370.

¶12

2. ASSISANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THALASSERY SOUTH-670 101.

¶13

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 9866 of 2013 (G)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBI P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZER DATED 23.2.2011 ISSUED BY SUB ENGINEER

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.2.2011 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 29.9.2012 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶23

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 23.3.2013 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT

¶24

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND DATED 5.2.2013 FOR RS.29497 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT

¶25

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND DATED 5.2.2013 FOR RS.36683 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶26

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 5.2.2013 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶27

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 18.2.2013 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶34

------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.9866 of 2013

¶35

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

¶36

Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P3, P5, P6, P7, P8 and P9.

¶39

The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner was given domestic connection as per Consumer No.6422 at LT IA tariff. An inspection was conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad on 23.02.2011 and it was noticed that the power was being used for the clinic and pharmacy, being conducted by the petitioner, wherein it was noticed that certain air conditioners and other equipments had been installed. It was observed that the connection was given for domestic purpose which should not have been utilized for the purpose of conducting a clinic. Based on the mahazar prepared, a provisional bill was issued and later a final bill was issued as per Ext.P3. By Ext.P3 the petitioner was called upon to pay the provisional assessment bill of 1,09,500/-. The petitioner₹ preferred an appeal which was disposed of by Ext.P5 order, wherein, after considering the entire factual issues, the appellate authority directed that the bill shall be revised considering the entire registered load 3 KW in use under LT VIB tariff for twelve months and both fixed charges as well as current charges may be billed applying penal rate. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue

¶40

W.P.(C).No.9866 of 2013

¶41

¶42

revised bill within a specified period. Pursuant to Ext.P5 order of the appellate authority, two bills had been issued to the petitioner. Ext.P6 is a bill for an amount of 29,497/- indicating that the bill is₹ for unauthorised load up to the date of regularisation w.e.f. 28.04.2012. Another bill had been issued as Ext.P7 for an amount of 36,683/- being revised inspection bill as per the order of the₹ appellate authority.

¶43

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the appellate authority, during the course of hearing it is submitted that the petitioner confines the challenge to Ext.P6.

¶44

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents supporting their stand. According to them, in addition to the charges as directed to be billed by the appellate authority, Board is also entitled for charges for regularisation as the petitioner had used unauthorised load.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board. It is evident from the appellate authority's order that the petitioner had only used 2.06 KW, which is within the sanctioned limit of 3 KW. It is also evident that the connected load used for domestic purpose was not computed by the Board officials at the relevant time. It is in the said circumstances that the appellate authority had issued the following

¶46

W.P.(C).No.9866 of 2013

¶47

¶48

direction :

¶49

“Hence, it is ordered that the bill shall be revised considering the entire registered load of 3 KW in use under LT VI B tariff for 12 months and both FC and CC may be billed applying penal rate. The Assessing Officer shall issue the revised bill as above within 7 days of receipt of this order.”

¶50

It is not in dispute that Ext.P7 is a bill issued in terms of the above observation and there is no reasonable explanation for issuing Ext.P6 bill.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent Board supports Ext.P6 bill by contending that the Board has a statutory right to recover such an amount. But these aspects have already been considered by the appellate authority and had formed an opinion that there is no excess connected load as far as the petitioner is concerned. Under such circumstances, there was no necessity for the Board to have overlooked the order passed by the appellate authority and issued Ext.P6.

¶52

In the result, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P6 is set aside. Excess amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards future bills.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶55

Dr.P.M.Manojan v. the Fdeputy Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.P.M.Manojan v. the Fdeputy Chief Engineer

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

M/S. Vinayaka Prime Vehicles (P) Ltd. Vs the Asst. Commissioner (Assmt)

M/S.Southern Ispat and Energy Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

C. Saralakumari Vs the Manager

Prasad Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B.

Ramnath S. Vs Authorised Officer, Asset Recovery Branch

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs the Addl.District Magistrate, Ernakulam