Remanded

T.P. Vinayan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC15 Jul 2024WP(C)/20135/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging KSEB demands for unconnected minimum charges for an HT commercial connection. No counter affidavit was filed and the petitioner's request regarding delay was not considered; the court remitted the matter to the Assistant Engineer to reconsider Exts.P2 and P6 afresh on a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted to 5th respondent Assistant Engineer to reconsider Exts.P2 and P6 demands on petitioner's representation within two weeks; decision within one month; payments subject to outcome.

T.P. Vinayan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 20135 OF 2015

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

T.P. VINAYAN
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.LATE THOPPIL PARAMESWARAN, KENT NALUKETTU, VENNALA
P.O., ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004.

¶10

2 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER

¶11

O/O THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM- 682 018.

¶12

3 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYTTILA - 682018.

¶13

4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL DIVISION TRIPUNITHURA- 682 17

¶14

5 ASSISTANT ENGINEEER O/O THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VYTTILA- 682 018.

¶15

SR GP SRI T K VIPINDAS
SRI.B. PREMOD, SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 20135 OF 2015

¶18

-2-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The present writ petition is filed impugning Exts.P2 and P6 orders passed by the Assistant Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The facts in the writ petition discloses that on 15.04.2013, the respondent Board issued an administrative sanction to the commercial building of the petitioner for granting electrical supply. On preliminary inspection, it was found that there were three defects. Hence, the petitioner was directed to complete the installation process in order to make the building ready for receiving electrical energy. It was also pointed out that, within four months from the date of receipt of the said letter, the petitioner has to prefer a Service Connection Application and also complete the installation. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to avail the service connection within the time frame as mentioned above, the fixed minimum charges as per Clause 10 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 has to be remitted. Thereafter, by Ext.P2 dated 12.12.2013, the petitioner was visited with a demand of 10,44,000/- as unconnected minimum charges. The petitioner remitted the same on 21.04.2014,

¶21

WP(C) NO. 20135 OF 2015

¶22

-3-

¶23

evident from Ext.P5. Later, on 01.07.2015, the petitioner received Ext.P6 demand for Rs.7,83,000/- over and above Rs.10,44,000/-. It is impugning Exts.P2 and P6 demands, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition.

¶24

I have heard Sri. L.Rajesh Narayan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B. Pramod, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶25

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, under Regulation 10 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005, the petitioner was entitled to 90 days notice after the H T connection was installed. It is only because of the failure on the part of the petitioner to receive the electric supply before the expiry of 90 days pursuant to the notice issued by the Board under Regulation 10, that the liability for levy of minimum charge accrued on the petitioner.

¶26

On the other hand, Sri. B. Pramod, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board contended that Ext.P1 is an administrative sanction with which the petitioner was well aware that he was required to complete the construction before the expiry of the period mentioned therein. It is only when

¶27

WP(C) NO. 20135 OF 2015

¶28

-4-

¶29

the petitioner failed to complete the construction and receive the electrical energy, the Board issued Ext.P2 demand. Though the petitioner remitted the amount covered under Ext.P2, still, there was delay on the part of the petitioner to receive the electrical energy. This is precisely the reason why Ext.P6 demand was issued. The learned Counsel also submitted that an application for electric connection was preferred on 26.11.2012 and thereafter, a scheme approval was issued on 17.12.2012. Thereafter only Ext.P1 order was passed.

¶30

I have considered the rival submissions made across the Bar.

¶31

It is pertinent to note that the respondents have not so far filed any counter affidavit controverting various averments in the writ petition. Therefore, the consequence of non filing of a counter affidavit would entile the petitioner to have reliefs claimed in the writ petition being granted. However, the petitioner is also at fault because there are several details are lacking in the writ petition, especially with regard to the application submitted by the petitioner for supply of electrical energy. It is also evident that when the demand was raised by the Assistant Engineer, the petitioner’s

¶32

WP(C) NO. 20135 OF 2015

¶33

-5-

¶34

request under Ext.P3 with regard to the delay in not laying HT Cable because of the road work, was also not seen considered by the authorities.

¶35

In view of the above, this Court is left with no alternative but to remand the matter back to the Kerala State Electricity Board to have the entire issue reconsidered. Though, the petitioner has challenged Exts.P2 and P6 demand notices, at this point of time, this Court is not inclined to accept the challenge, especially when the petitioner has already paid the amount of Rs.7,83,000/-, and by interim order dated 03.07.2015, it is ordered that the amount so paid shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.

¶36

Having found that several details for deciding the writ petition is lacking at the side of the petitioner as well as from the side of the KSEB by a proper counter affidavit, this Court has no other alternative but to remit the matter back to the 5^th respondent to take a call afresh. The petitioner shall make a detailed representation / objection to Ext.P6 demand. Petitioner is free to point out various mitigating factors on which the petitioner is entitled to have a reduction on the demand made by the 5^th respondent. The

¶37

WP(C) NO. 20135 OF 2015

¶38

-6-

¶39

5^th respondent shall take into consideration the representation based on the materials so available with them and take a decision as to whether the demand under Exts.P2 and P6 need to be reconsidered or not. The payment made by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P6 demand shall be subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the 5^th respondent as directed above. The petitioner shall file the representation as directed above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the representation, the 5^th respondent shall take a call on the same with notice to the petitioner and pass a detailed order within a further period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

 EASWARAN S.
 JUDGE

¶42

¶43

17.07.2024

¶44

WP(C) NO. 20135 OF 2015

¶45

-7-

¶46

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

EXT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING
NO.AE3/VINAYAN/2012-13/2000DATED
15/04/2013.

¶49

EXT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
BEARINGNO.DB55/TPVINAYAN/2013-14
DATED 12/12/2013.

¶50

EXT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
16/12/13.
EXT P4- TRUE OCPY OF THE NOTE DATED
21/04/2014.
EXT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTED
21/04/2014.
EXT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
BEARINGNO.DB55/TPVINAYAN/2015-16
DATED 01/07/2015.

T.P. Vinayan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P. Vinayan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

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

U.K.Assainar Vs Director of Local Fund Audit Department

K. Sivadasa Warrier Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

A.P. Beenamma Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Employee Pension Board

The Assistant Engineer Vs the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority

G. Biju Vs State of Kerala

Renuka Madhu Vs State of Kerala