Dismissed

Jolly C.I v. the Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Kerala HC6 Jan 2022WP(C)/242/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a provisional electricity bill. Relying on a prior precedent, the Court held that such bills are not subject to consumer forum jurisdiction and the remedy lies under the Indian Electricity Act, though the Court noted the delay in seeking that remedy.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; liberty reserved to move the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

Jolly C.I Vs the Kerala State Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

 WP(C) NO. 242 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 242 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JOLLY C.I
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. LONAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, CHEMMANNUR POLYMER PRODUCTS P.O,
MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THIROOR, THRISSUR 680 581
BY ADVS.
R.S.KALKURA
M.S.KALESH
HARISH GOPINATH
P.I.NAJUMAL HUSSAIN
ANJALI B CHANDRAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECREETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004

¶10

2THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,
MULAKUNNATHUKAVU, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THIROOR, THRISSUR 680
581

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

ADV. RIJI RAJENDRAN -SC,KSEB

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

 WP(C) NO. 242 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶17

======================== W.P.(C)No.242 of of 2022

¶18

------------------------------------------------

¶19

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 notice and Ext.P2 provisional

¶22

electricity bill issued to the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 shows that the provisional bill was issued as early as on 29.10.2011. For the last years, petitioner claims to have been pursuing his challenge against the bill before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short ‘CDRF’), which ultimately dismissed the complaint on 16.7.2021.

¶23

While dismissing the said complaint, CDRF found that the complaint is not maintainable before it, since the provisional bill was issued under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act against which an appeal lies under Section 127 to the appropriate appellate authority.

¶24

Sri.Riji Rajendran, learned Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioner and submitted that there is material suppression on the part of the petitioner, since Ext.P2 was superseded by a final assessment order dated 24.11.2011 and that there is no whisper about such a final

¶25

 WP(C) NO. 242 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

bill issued to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the final assessment order and bill was issued after hearing the petitioner on 15.11.2011 and that the suppression of the aforesaid matters in the writ petition dis-entitles the petitioner for any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

I have considered the contentions raised by the parties.

¶29

It is evident from Ext.P5 that though CDRF had initially

¶30

granted an interim order on 17.12.2011, finally the complaint was dismissed as not maintainable. Ext.P5 is the order dated 16.7.2021, the

¶31

copy of which was received according to the petitioner only on 18. 11.2021. Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission as held by this Court in (2018 (3) KLT 953) acts of unauthorised use of electricity as assessed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be challenged before a Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

¶32

In view of the above, I do not find any fault with Ext.P5 order, since the remedy of the petitioner is to move the appellate authority under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Though there is a huge delay of 10 years, the petitioner may have to initiate appropriate

¶33

 WP(C) NO. 242 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

proceedings to condone the delay if such a course is available, under law.

¶36

Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition. However, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to move the appellate authority under the Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act,2003, if available in law, the writ petition shall stand dismissed.

¶37

sd/

¶38

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶39

jm/

¶40

 WP(C) NO. 242 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 242/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29-10-2011 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL BILL DATED 29-10-
2011 ASSESSING THE CHARGE AT RS. 5,88,945/-
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 28-10-2011
PREPARED BY THE ATPS SQUAD OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-12-2011 IN I.A
927 OF 2011 IN CC 628 OF 2011 ON THE FILED OF
CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (NOW
COMMISSION)
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-07-2021 IN CC
NO. 628 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THRISSUR
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO. 2 OF BOOK
NO. 19 DATED 31-01-2012 ISSUED BY THE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR.

Jolly C.I v. the Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jolly C.I v. the Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maniyammal Vs Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Gmmco Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Cynosure Power Systems Vs Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract)

Rajan R. Vs the Authorised Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.

Koorakkadan Ebrahim Rasheed Vs the Income Tax Officer

L.Rajendran, Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)