Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.A. AZEEZ, MANAGING PARTNER versus KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.A. AZEEZ, MANAGING PARTNER v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - WP(C) No. 33717 of 2003(L) [2007] RD-KL 1288 (17 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33717 of 2003(L)

1. K.A. AZEEZ, MANAGING PARTNER,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER

3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

For Petitioner :SRI.IMTHIYAZ MOHAMMED M.S.

For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :17/01/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P(C)No.33717 of 2003

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Exts.P6 and P7. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P9. The main item of penalty is on unauthorised load. The sanctioned load is only 37 KW whereas the load connected at the premises is 59 KW. It is now settled law in view of the Bench decision of this court in W.A.No,1231/2003 that penalty in a situation of unauthorised load is to be limited to the fixed charges. There shall be no proportionate energy charges. As far as the penalty on the ground of faulty state of capacitors is concerned only if the fact of fault had been notified to the consumer and yet the consumer refusing to rectify the mistake the penalty is permissible. A consumer cannot know whether a capacitor of an electrical device is faulty or not. There is no case for the W.P(C)NO.33717/2003 respondents that the petitioner was informed about the faulty nature of the capacitor and that steps were not taken to repair the same. Therefore, there shall be no penalty in that regard also. The penalty as far as the unrecorded portion of energy as well as the unauthorised extension for 4 KW load will stand. The impugned orders to the extent required in the judgment as above are quashed. There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to issue a fresh demand to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no coercive steps against the petitioner in respect of the impugned demands till such time. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

ahg.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.