Dismissed

Internet Franchise Association (Ifa) v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Kerala HC9 Jan 2023WP(C)/418/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by an association challenging a KSEB letter mandating cable tagging was dismissed for want of maintainability. The Court found the petition defective for lacking the association's member list, missing reference documents, and failure to explain why operators did not seek delays from the authority first.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands dismissed due to non-maintainability.

Internet Franchise Association (Ifa) Vs the Kerala… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 418 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

INTERNET FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION (IFA)
(REGISTRATION NUMBER: EKM/TC/28/2022)
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
4/461,2ND FLOOR, SUITE NO 703, VALAMKOTTIL TOWERS,
JUDGEMUKKU, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 682021

¶7

BY ADVS.
T.S.SARATH
M.KIRANLAL
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SAMEER M NAIR
GEETHU KRISHNAN
SAILAKSHMI MENON

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001

¶10

2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001

¶11

SRI.B.PREMOD - SC KSEB
SMT.RASHMI K.M. - SR.GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 418 OF 2023

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Petitioner alleging to be an association without attaching the list of members has approached this Court by laying challenge to Ext.P3 letter dated 1.12.2022 commanding all the cable operators to tag the cables for a particular time, and on failure shall be removed and KSEB will not be entitled to reimburse the damages but rather would recover the same in case of such event. The contents of the letter reads as under:

¶17

“You have been instructed to complete the tagging procedure before 31.10.2022. From 1.10.2022 combined inspection shall be conducted, this was also intimated to you as per the referred document being so, it is instructed to complete the entire tagging procedure before 5.12.2022 and report to the completion to respective section office. Also, before 14.12.2022 combined inspection is to be done and accordingly rectifications if any are to be carried out. Cables which are not tagged, which has pending dues, which are pulled through without authority and, which are pulled through dangerously from 15.12.2022 shall be removed without any further notice. Any damages due to such removal to KSEB shall be recovered from cable owners concerned.”

¶18

WP(C) NO. 418 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

On perusal of the letter, reference No.1 is a decision of

¶21

the meeting of the cable T.V. operators held on 25.08.2022 and reference No.2 is a letter dated 11.10.2022, no copies thereof have been attached, it appears that it was a previous communication informing one of the cable operators to tag the cable.

¶22

Sri.B.Premod, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the KSEB, who is present in court has raised the objection qua maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the list of the members are not enclosed. Even if the petitioner want some time they could have approached the KSEB much before the receipt of the first communication regarding the tagging.

¶23

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

¶24

The writ petition is not maintainable for the following

¶25

reasons:

¶26

It does not contain the list of the members.

¶27

References Nos.1 and 2 have not been attached to the

¶28

WP(C) NO. 418 OF 2023

¶29

¶30

petition. In other words, this court has been prevented from

¶31

going through the contents of the same.

¶32

No explanation has come forth as to why the individual cable operators could not approach the KSEB seeking more time.

¶33

In view of the observation made hereinabove, writ petition

stands dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

nak

WP(C) NO. 418 OF 2023

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 418/2023

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AND
ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28-09-2022
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1-12-2022 AND
ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Internet Franchise Association (Ifa) v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Internet Franchise Association (Ifa) v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

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.B.Sanil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

R.Prasad Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Baby Vs State of Kerala

K. Lalitha, Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Rasheeda Vs Kerala State Eletricity Board Limited

All Kerala Motor Driving School Instructors & Workers Association Vs Union of India