Disposed

Athikal Muhammed v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Kerala HC4 Feb 2019WP(C)/1247/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the revised short assessment bill issued by KSEB, alleging inconsistency with the Ombudsman's order. The High Court allowed the petitioner to refer objections to the Assessing Authority and permitted payment of the bill amounts subject to the subsequent decision on those objections.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to refer objections; permitted to pay bill amounts within ten days subject to subsequent decision.

Athikal Muhammed Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 15TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1247 of 2019

PETITIONER/S:

ATHIKAL MUHAMMED

AGED 86 YEARS

S/O.AHAMADUKUTTY HAJI, M/S.ATHICAL BRICK & CLAY WORKS, EDAVANA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL N.SHENOI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB LTD., WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676341.

¶13

2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB LTD., EDAVANA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676541.

¶14

3 THE STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, CHARNGATTU BHAVAN, BUILDING NO.34/895, MAMANGALAM-ANCHUMANA ROAD, EDAPPALY, KOCHI-682024.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.N.SATHEESH, SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 1247 of 2019 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Compendiously, the petitioner's allegation in this writ petition is that Ext.P10 revised short assessment bill, issued by the 2^nd respondent-Assistant Engineer, is not in terms of Ext.P9 order issued by the State Electricity Ombudsman.

¶20

According to the petitioner, Ext.P9 order has become final to its full extent

¶21

and since the K.S.E.B has also accepted it

¶22

without challenge, they are obligated to comply with its directions implicitly. He says that Ext.P10, however, does not answer

¶23

the directions of the learned Ombudsman in any manner and therefore, that the said bill be set aside.

¶24

WP(C).No. 1247 of 2019 3

¶25

The learned Standing Counsel

¶26

appearing for the K.S.E.B submits that the allegations made by the petitioner are not tenable and that even a peripheral look through Ext.P10 would show that it is has

¶27

been issued specifically in compliance with the directions of the learned Ombudsman, taking into account all payments made by the petitioner earlier. He further says that if the petitioner has any objection to Ext.P10, his remedy was not to have approached this Court in this manner, but to have made his objections before the Assessing Authority, which is the 1^st respondent herein,

¶28

appropriately.

¶29

The learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioner, on hearing the learned Standing Counsel for K.S.E.B as afore, submits that

¶31

his client will refer objections to Ext.P10

¶32

WP(C).No. 1247 of 2019 4

¶33

bill and that the same be directed to be disposed of. The learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B states that he does not

¶34

object to the filing of such objections by the petitioner but pleads no interdiction be ordered against Ext. P10, in any manner, at this stage, because, according to him, even if the petitioner makes full payment under the said bill, he is entitled to have the same refunded, if for any reason it is found that such payments were in excess or unauthorised.

¶35

In the afore circumstances, I allow

¶36

the petitioner to refer his objections to Ext.P10-revised short assessment bill

¶37

before the 1^st respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer, within a period of seven days from

¶38

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the said Authority

¶39

WP(C).No. 1247 of 2019 5

¶40

will consider the same and issue

¶41

appropriate orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks therefrom.

¶42

After I completed dictation of this judgment, Sri.Sunil. N Shenoy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client will make full payment of the amounts covered by Ext.P10 within a period of ten days from today and that such payment be ordered to be subject to the decision to be taken by the 1^st respondent in terms of this judgment.

¶43

The learned Standing Counsel for the

¶44

K.S.E.B does not oppose this and I, therefore, further permit the petitioner to make payment of the amounts under Ext.P10 within a period of ten days from today,

¶45

WP(C).No. 1247 of 2019 6

¶46

which payment shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the 1^st respondent as per the terms of this judgment.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of

¶48

accordingly.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

SB/04/02/2017

¶53

WP(C).No. 1247 of 2019 7

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SHORT ASSESSMENT BILL DATED 27/01/2016.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/06/2016.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2017.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2017.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BILL DATED 27/10/2017.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WP(C)NO.41936/2017.
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF OP.NO.181/2017-18.
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/07/2018.
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2018.
EXHIBIT P10	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BILL DATED 13/12/2018.

¶57

RESPONDENTS EXTS.: NIL

¶58

// TRUE COPY //

¶59

P.A TO JUDGE

Athikal Muhammed v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athikal Muhammed v. the Assistant Executive 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

The Kerala State Small Industries Association Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran Achari Vs the Appellate Authority

Lijo Joseph Vs Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd.

Asha Sudarshanan, Vs State of Kerala

Ahamed Kunhi K., Vs Union of India

Salim K.H Vs the District Collector Idukki