Allowed

K.G.Purushothaman v. the K.S.E.Board & Another

Kerala HC8 Dec 2022WP(C)/2756/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging issuance of electricity bill (Ext.P6) alleged to violate a prior exemption order (Ext.P5). The bench was satisfied that the petitioner was not afforded a hearing before the bill was issued contrary to the reduced penalty directive in Ext.P5 and set aside the bill.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 bill set aside and respondent directed to issue a fresh bill in accordance with Ext.P5 order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

K.G.Purushothaman Vs the K.S.E.Board & Another — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2756 OF 2011

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.G.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.LATE GOVINDAN, KACHIYIL PUTHENVEEDU, CHARAMMOODU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

2 K.P INDRABALAN AGED 56 YEARS S/O K.G.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KACHIYIL PUTHENVEEDU, CHARUMMOODU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. [2ND ADDITIONAL PETITIONER IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/06/2018 IN I.A 10518/2018] BY ADV SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUDHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2 THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAPHY RAJ, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED SRI.N.SATHEESH SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B SRI.T.R.RAJANSCK.S.E.B. SRI. JOSWIN THAMPI KUNNATH, SC

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

WP(C) NO. 2756 OF 2011

¶14

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(C).No. 2756 of 2011

¶17

Dated this the 08^th day of December, 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶20

“(i) call for the records leading to Ext.P6 bill and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction;

¶21

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to issue a proper bill in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P5 order and after adjusting the payment of Rs. 30,000/- made pursuant to the interim order of this Hon'ble Court in O P No. 23082 of 1998; and

¶22

(iii) grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”[SIC]

¶23

Sri.K.G.Purushothaman, the 1^st petitioner in this writ petition, is a consumer of electricity under the 2^nd respondent. He was issued with Ext.P1 bill for an amount of

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO. 2756 OF 2011

¶26

Rs.1,09,804/- in the year 1998 alleging that there was unauthorised additional load. The same was challenged before this Court and, this Court as per Ext.P2 judgment was pleased to set aside Ext.P1. Ext.P2 judgment was taken up in Writ appeal and as per Ext.P3 judgment of the Division Bench, Ext.P2 judgment was set aside. As directed by the Division Bench, the 1^st petitioner was heard. In Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the Board to reconsider whether maximum penal charges should be demanded or otherwise to reduce it in proportionate to the gravity of misuse, after hearing the consumer. Thereafter, Ext.P5 order was passed by the Board in which it is stated that the penalty is reduced to two times the normal rate. Now the grievance is that, consequent to Ext.P5, Ext.P6 is issued in violation of the directions in Ext.P5 order.

¶27

As Sri. K.G.Purushothaman died on 29.01.2017, Sri. K.P.Indrabalan, his son, is impleaded as additional 2^nd petitioner in this writ petition.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 2756 OF 2011

¶31

the respondent Board.

¶32

The counsel appearing for the 2^nd petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that there is no mistake in Ext.P6.

¶33

This Court considered the contentions of the 2^nd petitioner and the respondents. A mere perusal of Ext.P5 order will show that the Board decided to reduce the penalty to two times the normal rate. The grievance of the 2^nd petitioner is that, Ext.P6 bill is issued in violation of Ext.P5 order. Ext.P6 is issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the 1^st petitioner. The 1^st petitioner has got a definite case that, Ext.P6 is not in accordance to the directions in Ext.P5 order because the amount covered in Ext.P6 bill is almost the same amount mentioned in Ext.P1. If that is the case, according to me, the officer concerned can give an opportunity of hearing to the 2^nd petitioner and thereafter issue appropriate bill based on Ext.P5. To facilitate the officer concerned to pass fresh bill, Ext.P6 can be set aside.

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO. 2756 OF 2011

¶36

Therefore , this writ petition is allowed in the following

¶37

manner:

¶38

i ) Ext.P6 is set aside.

¶39

ii ) There will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent

¶40

to give an opportunity of hearing to the additional 2 nd petitioner and thereafter issue appropriate bill strictly in accordance to Ext.P5 order passed by the 1 st respondent.

¶41

iii) The amount already deposited by the 1 st petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by this Court will be credited while issuing the revised bill as per Ext.P5.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶44

¶45

WP(C) NO. 2756 OF 2011

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2756/2011

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTOCOPY	OF THE B	ILL	DATED
	18.11.1998	ISSUED BY THE	KSE	BOARD
	FOR AN AMO	UNT OF RS. 1,09,8	04/-	.
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTOCOPY	OF THE JUDG	MENT	DATED
	11.10.2006 BY THIS HO	IN OP.NO.23082/ N'BLE COURT.	1998	PASSED
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTOCOPY	OF THE JUDG	MENT	DATED
	23.9.2009 BY THIS HO	IN WA.NO.1417/2 N'BLE COURT.	007	PASSED
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTOCOPY NO.2710/20 4.11.2006	OF THE ORDER 06 (LA.V/2309/2 ISSUED BY THE K.S	NO. 004) .E.B	B.O(FB) DATED OARD.
EXHIBIT P5	PHOTOCOPY	OF THE ORDER NO.	B.O.	(M.T&D)
	NO.879/201	0 (LA.V/252/20	10)	DATED
	31.3.2010 RESPONDENT	ISSUED BY .	THE	1ST
EXHIBIT P6	PHOTOCOPY	OF THE PENAL	BILL	DATED
	14.1.2011	ISSUED BY THE	K.S.	E.BOARD
	DEMANDING 1,02,676/-	AN AMOUNT .	OF	RS.

¶50

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶51

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

K.G.Purushothaman v. the K.S.E.Board & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Purushothaman v. the K.S.E.Board & Another

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

M/S. Zafodo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Regional Drugs Inspector

M/S.Sarabhai Institute of Science & Tech Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Dr.Deepu.S. Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Navas Vs Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited

Saji K.M. Vs Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)

Rajendran Nair Vs State of Kerala