Dismissed

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. Silver Castle Resorts (Pvt.) Ltd.

Kerala HC21 Dec 2022WP(C)/4429/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSEB appealed against a forum order imposing 50% extra charges on a resort for delaying replacement of a faulty electricity meter. Justice Rawal reviewed tariff regulations and timelines, found no grounds to interfere with the forum's order, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no reasonable ground for judicial review interference.

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Silver Castle… — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4429 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,

¶8

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, PANAMARAM,
WAYANAD DISTRICT PIN 670 721

¶9

2THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRITY BOARD LIMITED,
PADINJARATHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 575

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

SILVER CASTLE RESORTS (PVT.) LTD.
MANJOORA, POZHUTHANA,
WAYANAD DISTRICT PIN 673 575

¶14

BY ADVS.
M.S.AMAL DHARSAN
NOEL JACOB(K/003616/2022)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 4429 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Present writ petition on behalf of the KSEB is directed against the order dated 16.11.2019 Ext.P4 of the Consumer Grievance Redresssal Forum, Northern Region, Kozhikode whereby appeal preferred by the consumer against the order of the assessment has been allowed.

¶20

Succinctly, the facts in brief are that respondent– consumer having a HT connection and on 12.10.2018 when inspection was conducted at the premises, it was found that the rest and scroll button of the meter was not working properly. Even the CT ratio was also not suitable for the contract demand and meter was declared faulty. The aforementioned fact was intimated to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kalpetta. The Deputy chief Engineer vide letter dated 17.10.2018 Ext.P1 directed the consumer to replace the faulty meter with a new 3 phase and 4 wire ToD meter within a period of 15 days. The said letter was returned by the postal authorities and thereafter the copy of the letter was handed over to the respondent on 11.11.2018.

¶21

¶22

WP(C) NO. 4429 OF 2021

¶23

Respondent failed to replace the faulty meter within 15 days as per the relevant regulations under Chapter VI of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014. Respondent had submitted a request dated 17.11.201 8 for granting more time which was rejected vide communication dated 23.11.2018 Ext.P2. Meter remained faulty for 104 days from 12.10.2018 to 23.01.2019 and thus there occurred a delay of 74 days. The order of the Appellate Authority is wholly cryptic, perverse and against the provisions of Regulation 118(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014. Period of 11 days expired, much later, whereas the application for replacement was submitted after one month and it is on that account, have been made liable to pay 50% extra over the prevailing rates.

¶24

On the other hand, Adv.Thushara James, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent countered the argument and submitted that petitioner has incorrectly read the terms and conditions of the Kerala State Regulatory Commission Order dated 17.04.2017 where in Clause 4(d) of the general conditions for HT and EHT tariff, it was clearly indicated that if the

¶25

WP(C) NO. 4429 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

existing consumer having elected to purchase and supply the meter for replacement of the defective meter in his premises, fails to do so within two months, such consumer will be charged 50% extra over the prevailing rates applicable to him for both demand and energy, for the said two months and one month thereafter. The order impugned is dated 16.11.2019 whereas the writ was filed on 19.02.2021 after one and half years and explanation given was that the matter was referred to the legal department and thereafter owing to the Covid it could not be filed. The period of 15 days would have been commenced from the date of the intimation dated 23.11.2018 where the request of the petitioner was rejected and not from the previous letter dated 11.11.2018. Respondent had initiated the steps to procure the meter even on the second day of the receipt of the notice. The meter was submitted for testing on 11.01.2019. The period between the date of intimation and remittance of fee for testing of the meter is only 61 days Clause 4(d) w ould not be applied to the respondents because the intimation of the faulty meter was admittedly given on 11.11.2018 and the same has been submitted for testing as early as on

¶28

WP(C) NO. 4429 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

11.01.2019. In fact Clause 4(d) enables the existing consumer for a period 60 days for procurement of new meter and therefore the contents of the letter Ext.P2 rejecting the request of one month time is in gross violation.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶32

It would be expedient to re-produce Clause 4(d) of the

¶33

tariff order da ted 08.07.2019:

¶34

“4(d) if any existing consumer having elected to purchase and supply the meter for replacement of the defective meter in his premises, fails to do so within two months, such consumer will be charged 50% extra over the prevailing rates applicable to him for both demand and energy, for the said two months and one month thereafter.”

¶35

Respondent, vide communication dated 11.11.2018 ,

¶36

gave 15 days of time for replacement, the contents of the same reads as under:

¶37

“The Executive Engineer, TMR Division, Kannur had inspected the Tod Meter installed at your premises (Con. Code: 24/5859) on 12-10-2018 and reported vide reference cited that, the Resets Scroll Buttons of the meter was found not working properly. The real time clock in the meer shows 1 (one) hour and 11 mts faster than IST. The time difference

¶38

WP(C) NO. 4429 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

more than 30 mts (slower or faster) the maximum demand register in the meter recorded wrongly and also changed the Billing Zone. Hence the TOD meter was declared as faulty on 12-10-2018. The existing contract demand of the premises is 200 K VA and the CT ratio suitable for the same is 15/5 A But the connected CT Ratio is 20/5 A.

¶41

Hence you are requested to procure new 3 phase 4 wire ToD meter (Class-0.25). CT& PT (Class 0.25 & 0.2) unit bearing CT ratio 15/5 A and get it calibrated from TMR Kannur for replacing the same. The faulty meter should be replaced within 15 days on receipt of this intimation as per relevant regulation of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014. ”

¶42

7. Request of the petitioner was rejected vide

¶43

communication dated 23.11.2018 Ext.P2. The contents of the same reads as under:

¶44

“Please refer to the above. You had already been intimated to replace the faulty meter at your premises with new CT/PT and Tod Meter within 15 (Fifteen) days vide reference (2). But the meter yet to be replaced by you and now requested one month time for replacing the faulty meter vide ref (3). As per the Tariff order No. 1007/F&T/KSERC/2016/Dated 17-042017, if any existing consumer, having elected to purchase and supply meter for replacement of the defective meter in his premises, fails to do so within two months, such consumer will be charge 50 % extra over the prevailing rates applicable to him for both demand and energy for the said two months and one month thereafter. Hence your request

¶45

WP(C) NO. 4429 OF 2021

¶46

¶47

for time extension for the replacement of faulty meter will not be considered.”

¶48

On joint reading of the provisions aforementioned and

¶49

the contents, it is evident that the period of two months is prescribed but the petitioner gave 15 days time for replacement of the meter. Concededly, the meter was submitted for replacement on 11.01.2019, the testing report came on 18.01.2019 and was replaced on 24.01.2019. Even the explanation for filing the writ petition belatedly though has some force, but equities have to be struck.

¶50

For the reason aforementioned, I do not find any reasonable ground to interfere in the impugned order while exercising the powers judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition sans merit, accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

nak

WP(C) NO. 4429 OF 2021

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4429/2021

¶58

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶59

Exhibit R1True copy of the letter dated 17.11.2018
Exhibit R2True copy of the test result dated
18.01.2019

¶60

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶61

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO
TS1/HT-MF/ECK/2018-19/1154 ISSUED BY THE
DEPUTY CHEIF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,
KALPETTA TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 23-11-
2018

¶62

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
TARIFF ORDER NO. 1007/F AND T/2016/KSERC
DATED 17TH APRIL, 2017, ISSUED BY THE
KEERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶63

EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-11-2019
OF THE CONSUMEER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL
FORUM, NORTHERN REGION, KOZHIKODE IN O.P
NO. 78/2019-20

¶64

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNIATION NO TS1/HT-
MF/ECK/2018-19/964 FORWARDED BY THE
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,
KALPETTA TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 17-10-
2018

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. Silver Castle Resorts (Pvt.) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. Silver Castle Resorts (Pvt.) Ltd.

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

Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs P.Ajith Kumar

Tvs Mobility Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary

M/S. Indsil Hydro Power and Manganese Limited Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Normandy Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Cassanova Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Polson Distillery Vs State of Kerala