Disposed

M/S.Essar Telecom Infrastructure v. the K.S.E.Board

Kerala HC20 Dec 2021WP(C)/15606/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed petition challenging additional OYEC charges. Court held such matters concern delays and billing disputes unsuited for writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and directed petitioner to seek redress before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of Electricity Act, 2003.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum within one month; FQ order to be incidental to Forum complaint.

M/S.Essar Telecom Infrastructure Vs the K.S.E.Board — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 15606 OF 2010

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

M/S. ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., 36/2624, FIRST FLOOR, CHERAMANGALATHU HOUSE, SHENOY ROAD, COCHIN - 682 017, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT MANAGER (LEGAL & ACQUISITION), MR. BABU PATTATHANAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION KSEB, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THONDIYIL, PIN - 670 673, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT. NAZEEBA. O.H., KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD SRI. RAJU JOSEPH SR. SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B SRI. K.T. PAULOSE, SC, KSEB

¶8

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

W.P.(C) NO.15606 OF 2010

¶10

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

The petitioner, Tele Communication Infrastructure Provider has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 demand by Kerala State Electricity Board for an additional OYEC amount of Rs.83,927/- from the petitioner for the installation of a transformer.

¶13

According to the petitioner, they have already remitted the amount of Rs.34,400/- for the OYEC connection as demanded in Ext.P1 and no further amounts are due from the petitioner.

¶14

In Ext.P3 issued by the Board, the Board has stated that the OYEC charges collected were short by Rs.1,18,100/- and as the Board has incurred additional expenditure, the petitioner is bound to remit the balance amount of Rs.83,927/-.

¶15

According to the petitioner, the demand for additional amount raised in Ext.P4 is illegal and arbitrary and it is only due to the fault of the KSEB in not providing the connection within the time stipulated under the Act and

¶16

W.P.(C) NO.15606 OF 2010

¶17

¶18

Regulations that the Board incurred additional amounts and the petitioner is not liable to pay the demand raised in Ext.P3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to Regulation 8 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 (as it stood then) to contend that th e demand made in Ext.P3 is illegal.

¶19

The learned Standing Counsel for the Board refers to the statement filed on behalf of the Board and submits that the petitioner had made the application only on 28.12.2009 and the amount collected from the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 is only as per the estimate prepared on the basis of the cost data available at that time.

¶20

Whether, there is delay on the part of the Board in providing the OYEC connection and whether the demand made in Ext.P3 is as per the terms of the regulations are all matters which cannot be considered in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner will be free to approach the Consumer

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.15606 OF 2010

¶22

¶23

Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. If the petitioner prefers a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum shall consider the complaint with notice to the petitioner and to the Board and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the complaint.

¶24

It is made clear that, the amount paid by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 shall be provisional and subject to the order to be passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in the complaint to be preferred by the petitioner.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶28

SPR

¶29

W.P.(C) NO.15606 OF 2010

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶33

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTOCOPY OF NO.0669/2009-	THE 10/	DEMAND NOTICE 460/6-1-2010.
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTOCOPY OF 10/487 DATED	THE 22.	LETTER NO.DB69/09- 01.2010.
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTOCOPY OF	THE	LETTER NO.DB
	NO.20/09.10/5	76	DATED 03.03.2010.
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTOCOPY OF 09.04.2010.	THE	REPLY DATED

¶34

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:-

¶35

EXHIBIT R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY P.C.HAFSATH DATED 07.12.2009.

M/S.Essar Telecom Infrastructure v. the K.S.E.Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Essar Telecom Infrastructure v. the K.S.E.Board

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

Ismail Vs Repco Home Finance Limited

Farzana Khatoon @ Farzana Parvez Vs Abey George

Devasia Joseph Vs State Bank of India

Somasundaran K Vs State of Kerala

Famitha.D Vs Muthoot Housing Finance Company Ltd.

Niyasudheen Vs the Tahasildar