Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER versus M/S.WESTERN BOARDS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER v. M/S.WESTERN BOARDS - RP No. 1142 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 1367 (17 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 1142 of 2006()

1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Petitioner

3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

Vs

1. M/S.WESTERN BOARDS,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB

For Respondent :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :17/01/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

R.P.No.1142 of 2006 in O.P.No.23136 of 2002 Dated 17th January, 2007.

O R D E R

This is a petition to review the judgment dated 22.6.2006 in O.P.No.23136/02. The issue pertains to the steps taken by the review petitioners for realising proportionate energy charges on account of the alleged unauthorised load. Following the Division Bench judgment in W.A.1231/03, this Court held that there shall not be penalty by way of proportionate energy charges and that the penalty should be limited to the fixed charges.

2. Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that the Division Bench only prohibited the levy of maximum penalty and the matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. I am afraid, the contention cannot be appreciated. Admittedly, there is no prescribed norm or guidelines in such situations to be examined on a case to case basis. That would only pave way to unhealthy situations of arbitrariness. That apart, since the energy charges can be levied only for the measured energy, whether there is any scope at all for such examination is yet another issue, though Sri.Karunakaran contended that it is not R.P.1142/06 the energy charges that is levied, but the penalty. If as a matter of fact it is the penalty that is levied, there is no purpose in using the expression 'proportionate energy charges'. Once the expression used is 'proportionate energy charges', that would only indicate the quantum of energy that could have been consumed by such installation using the said additional load, which is against the spirit of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, since irrespective of the connected load, the energy consumed has already been properly measured and billed. In fact the Board itself in the case of commercial consumers has admitted and applied the above principle, as noted in the writ appeal judgment. In that view of the matter, there is nothing on merits to review the judgment. The review petition is hence dismissed.

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.