The Court quashed the Electricity Board's provisional assessment order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act for failing to consider the petitioner's objections. It directed the Board to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner.
Quashing of Ext.P5 order; direction to pass fresh orders hearing petitioner within three weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2017/3RD JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 17129 of 2017 (M)
PETITIONER(S):
RAJEEVAN V.N.,
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN V.K, VELLILAMTHADATHIL HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O, KUMMANCHERY, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 033.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU, SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682 024.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PALARIVATTOM, PIN -682 025.
3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY SRI.N.RAPHY RAJ, SC. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 17129 of 2017 (M)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C) No.17129 of 2017(M)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the tenant in a building and the landlord of the said premises is the consumer on the files of the Electricity Board. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P5 order of the respondent Board, passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, demanding amounts from the petitioner towards alleged unauthorised connected load, that was detected in the premises. It is the case of the petitioner that on being informed of the notice issued prior to the passing of the order under Section 126, he had preferred Ext.P4 objections before the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P5 order, without considering the said objections and Ext.P5 order was communicated to the landlord. It is the case of the petitioner that, if the 1st respondent had considered the objections preferred by the petitioner, then 1st respondent would not have passed Ext.P5 order.
W.P.(c).No.17129 of 2017 : 2 :
the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find from Ext.P5 order that, it does not refer to Ext.P4 objection, that has been filed by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, Ext.P5 order proceeds on the basis that no objection to the provisional assessment order was filed on behalf of the consumer. Inasmuch as Ext.P4 objection has been produced along with the writ petition, I have no reason to think that the same was not available with the 1st respondent. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P5 order and direct the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, after considering Ext.P4 objections submitted by the petitioner herein, and after hearing the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent, for further action.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
sm/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Electricity Board's order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act was valid when it proceeded without considering the petitioner's objections.
Whether the Electricity Board is justified in passing an order without hearing the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajeevan V.N.
The Assistant Engineer, KSEB
The Kerala State Electricity Board
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
