Remanded

Subair v. the Assistant Engineer

Kerala HC23 Dec 2022WP(C)/42544/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that while the appellate authority's order upholding demand was not illegal, the petitioner could restore the electricity connection only if they deposited the surcharge amount within one week and availed legal remedies. The matter was remanded for directions to restore supply upon such deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit surcharge within one week; respondents directed to restore electricity connection upon such deposit.

Subair Vs the Assistant Engineer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 2ND POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 42544 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SUBAIR V AGED 47 YEARS S/O. ABDULLA, VARIKKALIL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., KODUVALLY (VIA), KOZHIKODE - 673 582.

¶8

BY ADVS. O.A.NURIYA REVATHY P. MANOHARAN ASHEEK ANTONY ANAND B. MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, OMASSERY - 673 582.

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB LTD, THIRUVAMBADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

3 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CC 51/52 NEAR 110 KV SUB STATION, VYTILLE, KOCHI - 682 019

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 42544 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to get the electricity connection restored, the petitioner intents to pay the demanded surcharge and the unauthorized arrears as per the order of the appellate authority under protest.

¶18

I am afraid the arguments assailing the order of the appellate authority upheld the demand of Rs.5,33,441/- confining it to 12 months do not suffer from any illegality as connected writ petition bearing No.42540 of 2022 by a separate judgment has been dismissed and the petitioner is at liberty to deposit that aforementioned amount. As far as the present writ petition viz demand of surcharge, the petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy in accordance with law. In case the petitioner avails the remedy in accordance with law and deposits the amount of surcharge under protest, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Ombudsman. In case the amount is deposited within a period of one week from today, the respondents are directed to restore the electricity connection. Sd/-

sab

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 42544 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42544/2022

¶25

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶26

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.06.2021 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P1A:	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF KSEB SHOWING BILLS PAID BY THE PETITIONER. DATED NIL
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 06.09.2021.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2022 IN APPEAL NO. 89/2021 PASSED BY THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12.12.2022 BEARING NO. BB/APPEAL/CO.NO. 20020/2022-23/181 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Subair v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subair v. the Assistant 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

Seetha K Vs the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

A.O. Anto Vs Chenthamara P

Philo Vs the Commissioner

M.B.Sanil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

R.Prasad Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Baby Vs State of Kerala