Dismissed

Pathummakkutty. M. v. Senior Superintendent

Kerala HC12 Jul 2016WP(C)/9944/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a short assessment bill of Rs. 94,138 under Regulation 42, claiming excessive rates. The court dismissed the writ, upheld the assessment, and directed the petitioner to remit the balance within three months after remitting 50%. Overall quality of this judgment is thin.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of writ petition; direction to petitioner to remit the balance amount within three months.

Pathummakkutty. M. Vs Senior Superintendent — 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

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2016/21ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9944 of 2007 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PATHUMMAKKUTTY M.,

¶8

W/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, AGED 52, RESIDING AT MANDAYAPURATHU HOUSE, P.O.ULLANAM NORTH,, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPPURAM DIST.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISH R. MENON

¶10

SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶13

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TIRURANGADI DIVISION, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA-KSEB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 9944 of 2007 (H)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 15/6/2006 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2332/-

¶21

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 15/6/2006 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2012/-

¶22

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTIRICITY BILL ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER ON 16/8/2006 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2749/-

¶23

EXHIBIT-P4: COPY OF THE ELECTRICITYU BILL ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER ON 15/9/2006 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2568/-

¶24

EXHIBIT-P5: COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER ON 16/10/2006 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.7806/-

¶25

EXHIBIT-P6: COPY OF THE ELECTIRICITY BILL ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER ON 15/11/06 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.6082/-

¶26

EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE ELECTIRICITY BILL ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER ON 12/11/07 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.8192/-

¶27

EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE ELECTIRICITY BILL ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER ON 19/2/2007 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.7077/-

¶28

EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE DEMAND CUM DISCONNECTION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 7/3/2007

¶29

EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶31

EXHIBIT R1(A): COPY OF THE CONSUMPTION DATAILS OF CONSUMER NO.9215 EXHIBIT R2(B): COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT OF CONSUMER NO.9215.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶36

------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9944 of 2007

¶37

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2016

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 by which the petitioner was served with a short assessment bill for an amount of Rs.94,138/-.

¶40

According to the petitioner, the amount claimed is too excessive. The meter was functioning properly and regular monthly bills were being paid from time to time. At no point of time, the meter readers complained regarding any fault in the meter. However, suddenly petitioner was faced with a short assessment bill by which, power charges had been claimed for

¶41

a period of 33 months at an average of 1022 units per month.

¶42

Petitioner submitted Ext.P10 requesting the

¶43

Executive Engineer to waive the said exorbitant amount. Since no action has been taken in the matter, this writ petition is filed.

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 9944 of 2007

¶45

-2-

¶46

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents

¶47

inter alia stating that the petitioner's meter was changed on

¶48

27.3.2002 with the initial reading 22. It was working regularly until December 2003, when the consumption became very low, thereby indicating that the meter was faulty. However, bills were being issued only on the basis of available rates. It is stated though the average consumption from April, 2002 to November, 2003 was 1022 units, from December 2003 to August, 2006, the average became 221 units alone, while clearly indicated that there was some fault in the meter. It is also said that the factory was working regularly during the relevant time. Accordingly, the meter was changed on 11.9.2006, and thereafter, the average monthly consumption was noticed as 1199 unit per month. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual situation the average consumption was worked out as 1022 unit per month and a demand had been made. It is also stated the petitioner has paid 50% of the short assessment bill and the balance amount is due.

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 9944 of 2007

¶50

-3-

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

¶52

terms of Regulation 42 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, the Board was not entitled to assess the monthly charges in the same manner. It

¶53

is contended that the previous six months average ought to have been considered for the purpose of computing short assessment, if any.

¶54

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board while supporting the demand, submitted that during the relevant period between December 2003 and August 2006, the consumption was evidently low

¶55

though the petitioner was continuously functioning their industrial unit, using power.

¶56

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, it is clear from Ext.R1(a) that the Board had taken care to find out the readings while the meter was functioning properly and during the period when it was disfunctioning. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

¶57

W.P.(C) No. 9944 of 2007

¶58

unit was not regularly working during the time between December, 2003 to August 2006, there is no material to establish the said fact and no such objection had been raised at any point of time. Therefore, the assumption made by the respondent Board with reference to the aforesaid factual issue is well justified.

¶59

In the result, I do not think that this Court should interfere with Ext.P9 at this stage of proceedings. Petitioner has already remitted 50% of the amount. Petitioner shall remit the balance amount within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶60

With the above observation, this Writ petition is closed.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶63

Scl/12.07.2016

Pathummakkutty. M. v. Senior Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathummakkutty. M. v. Senior Superintendent

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

M/S. Varunni Plantations Vs Agricultural Income Tax

M/S.Beta Cashews & Allied Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Mohanan Varappurath Vs State Bank of India

Komalam Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

C.Najeeb Vs K.S.E.B

M/S.Kannamthanam Vs State of Kerala