Dismissed

C.T.Lukose v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC19 Jan 2021RP/637/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed in W.P.(C) No.11802/2013. The petition challenged the observation that the court had remitted the case solely for the enhancement of penalty. The court held, based on the earlier judgment, that the petitioner could not agitate other issues and no error appeared on the face of the judgment.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed.

C.T.Lukose Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/29TH POUSHA, 1942

¶4

RP.No.637 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 11802/2013

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11802/2013(A) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶7

C.T.LUKOSE, S/O THOMAS, AGED 67 YEARS,MANAGING DIRECTOR, JASS ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P)LTD., SREEKANTAMANGALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MOHAMED HARIS

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION, ETTUMANOOR,KOTTAYAM-686 631.

¶12

3 THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

4 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM-686 003.

¶14

5 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL), VIDHUTH BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶15

6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, T.M.R.DIVISION, PALLAM, KOTTAYAM-686 631.

¶16

R1-R6 BY ADV. SRI.N.SATHEESH

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ncd

¶19

RP No.637/2020 in WPC.11802/2013

: 2 :

O R D E R

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2021

¶24

Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11802/2013 has filed this

¶25

review petition.

¶26

In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged Ext.P6 order imposing the penal bill amounting ₹24,31,290/-. The said order was passed pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C) No.33200/2003 filed by the petitioner.

¶27

In the judgment dated 12.12.2019 sought to be reviewed by the petitioner, in paragraph 12, this Court observed as follows:-

¶28

“12. Once this court has considered the matter and delivered Ext.P5 judgment arriving at categoric findings about the tampering of the meter, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the orders passed by the authorities on tampering of matter are illegal. The issue was considered by this Court. The issue was remitted back for the limited purpose of considering the question of enhancement of the penalty.”

¶29

RP No.637/2020 in WPC.11802/2013

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

The contention of the petitioner is that the finding of this Court that remitting back the case as per Ext.P5 was for the limited purpose of considering the question of enhancement of penalty, is wrong, and therefore there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶33

Paragraph 7 of Ext.P5 judgment of this Court by which the matter was remitted back reads as follows:-

¶34

“7. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exhibit P7 and P8. It is made clear that the petitioner will be liable for payment of the amount of penalty imposed originally through Exhibits P3 and P4. However, considering the long pending dispute of the matter I direct the respondent to waive imposition of interest or surcharge on the said amount. The matter is remitted to the 4th respondent appellate authority for fresh decision regarding the question with respect to enhancement of the quantum of penalty. Petitioner will be at liberty to raise all contentions in this regard including dispute regarding jurisdiction of the appellate authority. The appellate authority will decide the issue after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein as well as to other parties concerned. A fresh decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶35

RP No.637/2020 in WPC.11802/2013

¶36

: 4 :

¶37

A reading of the said findings of this Court in Ext.P5 would show that liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise all contentions with regard to consider the question with respect to enhancement of the quantum of penalty alone.

¶38

In view of the specific findings of this Court in the earlier Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate other issues. At any rate, there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment dated 12.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.11802/2013, warranting review of the judgment.

¶39

The review petition is therefore dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶41

aks/19.01.2021

C.T.Lukose v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.T.Lukose v. Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Jayasree v. Vs State Bank of India

K.E.Sunitha Vs the Insurance Ombudsman

P.Priyeshkumar Vs State of Kerala

M.P Jose Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner

M/S Seahorse Ship Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India

C.K.K.Catering Services Vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited