Allowed

Sudhir Shanthilal v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Kerala HC22 Mar 2024WP(C)/36788/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a KSEB demand for LT connection arrears of Rs.5,916 plus interest of Rs.1,45,786 after HT charges were waived. The court found no bill or demand was ever issued for the arrears, so no liability or interest arose, and quashed the Ext.P8 demand.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P8 demand for LT arrears and interest quashed; petitioner relieved of the Rs.1,51,702 demand.

Sudhir Shanthilal Vs the Kerala State Electricity… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 36788 OF 2015

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SUDHIR SHANTHILAL
‘’LA-FONTAINE’’, CANTONMENT, KANNUR - 670 001.
BY ADV SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004.

¶10

2 SPECIAL OFFICER REVENUE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDHUTHI BHAVANI, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004.

¶11

3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KANNUR - 670 001.

¶12

4 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, DHARMADAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR -670 101.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR R., SC, KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY BO
G.KEERTHIVAS

¶15

SRI. RIJI RAJENDRAN (SC KSEB)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 36788 OF 2015 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Petitioner was the partner of M/S. Purushotham Gokul Das Match Company, which was engaged in the manufacture of match splints, block boards and flush doors, frames etc. According to the petitioner, the Company was functioning from 1962 to 1976 with power connection having connected load of 168 KVA. According to the petitioner, due to non-availability of raw materials, the Unit discontinued the manufacture of splints and veneers and the work force was also reduced from 85 to 34. The connected load was also reduced to 72.383 KW. The petitioner states that, from the year 1998 onwards, the Unit was constrained to lock out due to labour problems and no manufacturing process was carried out. When the petitioner received a communication from the Board to intimate the then connected load, the petitioner filed a reply stating that the connected load was less than 100 KW. However, the petitioner could not submit a test report and on the basis of the assumption that the connected load of the petitioner was in excess of 100 KW the Board demanded HT tariff for the period from March 1989 to April 1989. The petitioner disputed this

¶20

WP(C) NO. 36788 OF 2015 3

¶21

demand. Power was disconnected on 24.05.1989. According to the petitioner, the minimum demand on the LT side had been paid till 12.10.1989, on the basis of the bills issued by the concerned Electrical Section. The petitioner also approached the Board by filing Ext.P1 representation. Ext. P2 letter of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Thalasserry dated 25.04.1990 indicates that the connected load was only 72.383 Watts, prompting the 3^rd respondent to issue Ext.P3 order, confirming that the HT charges cannot be levied on the petitioner. However, even after Ext.P3 order, certain demands were raised on the petitioner for HT tariff. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No.36147 of 2005, which was disposed of on 09.07.2015, permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Board, projecting his grievances. Thereafter, Ext.P7 order dated 28.10.2015 has been issued again finding that the petitioner is not liable to pay the demands on the basis of HT tariff. Thereafter, by Ext.P8 letter, the petitioner was informed that, after waiver of HT charges, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.5,916/- as arrears till December-1996. Ext.P8 also intimated the petitioner that he has to pay a further sum of

¶22

WP(C) NO. 36788 OF 2015 4

¶23

Rs.1,45,786/- as interest for the period from February-1997 to October-2015. It is challenging this demand that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition.

¶24

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board would submit that the waiver of charges on the HT side did not absolve the petitioner of paying the amounts payable for the LT connection. It is submitted that the LT side arrear for the period from October-1995 to December1996 was found to be Rs.13,630/-. It is submitted that, inclusive of penal interest upto December-1996, the amount payable by the petitioner was thus Rs.14,691/-. It is submitted that, after adjusting the security deposit Rs.8,775/- the balance arrear payable by the petitioner is found to be Rs.5,916/-. It is submitted that since the said demand, which was payable in the month of December-1996, was not paid by the petitioner, interest was calculated on the said amount for the period from February-1997 to 31.10.2015. It is submitted that, the interest demanded was for a sum of Rs.1,45,786/-, making the total demand (as on 31.10.2015) Rs.1,51,702/-.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶26

WP(C) NO. 36788 OF 2015 5

¶27

that there was no demand on the petitioner and no bills were raised on the petitioner demanding the payment of an amount of Rs.5,916/-.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. There is nothing on record to suggest that, at any point of time, the petitioner was called upon to remit a sum of Rs.5,916/-, which is stated to be the arrears as on December 1996. There is no material , whatsoever, to suggest that any bill had also been issued to the petitioner for the said amount. The facts of this case would show that, for the relevant period, demands were raised on the petitioner under the HT tariff, which has been disputed by the petitioner and such dispute finally culminated in Ext.P7 proceedings, which clearly found that the petitioner was not liable to pay HT tariff. When there was no demand, the question of payment of interest also does not arise. An amount of Rs.8,775/- has already been adjusted from the security deposit of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that the demands now raised against the petitioner under Ext.P8 is liable to be quashed.

¶29

WP(C) NO. 36788 OF 2015 6

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P8 is

¶31

quashed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

GOPINATH P.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

ajt

¶36

WP(C) NO. 36788 OF 2015 7

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36788/2015

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/09/1990 SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/04/1990 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, THALASSERY SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 25/04/1990 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE DISCONNECTION NOTICE. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/08/2015 EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28/10/2015 OF THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17/11/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Sudhir Shanthilal v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Shanthilal 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.N.Reji, Vs Union of India (Uoi)

T.C.Noushad, Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S.Universal Agencies, Vs State Bank of India

Sindhu.M Vs Addl.D.P.I.

Riju V.N Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

S.Muhammed Khalil Vs the District Collector