Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ROSE MARY, D/O. DANIEL, AGED 66 YEARS versus TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ROSE MARY, D/O. DANIEL, AGED 66 YEARS v. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) - WP(C) No. 9341 of 2004(K) [2007] RD-KL 15925 (17 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 9341 of 2004(K)

1. ROSE MARY, D/O. DANIEL, AGED 66 YEARS
... Petitioner

2. P.V.JOSEPH, S/O. P.M.VARKEY,

3. K.C.SIVAN,

4. P.SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. RAMASWAMY,

Vs

1. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP MATHEW

For Respondent :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :17/08/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P. (C). NO. 9341 OF 2004

Dated this the 17th day of August, 2007.



J U D G M E N T

Petitioners approached this Court with certain grievances regarding the delay in getting service connection, their eligibility to get the connection under the Rural Electrification Scheme and with a further grievance with regard to the notice regarding unconnected minimum guarantee.

2. It is the case of the Electricity Board that out of 37 beneficiaries, only 22 beneficiaries availed connection. According to the petitioners, they are not liable to pay the unconnected minimum guarantee since there was delay in effecting the service connection. There is also a grievance with regard to the revision of the minimum guarantee amounts.

3. Be that as it may. It is settled law that in case the line has otherwise become self remunerative, for the only reason that a person is a signatory to the minimum guarantee agreement, he is not liable to pay the minimum guarantee as per the agreement. These are the matters for the fourth respondent to consider while taking action on Exhibit P3. W.P. (C). 9341/04 2 There will be a direction to the fourth respondent to look into Exhibit P3 with notice to the petitioners and take appropriate action in accordance with law. This shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Interim order passed by this Court will continue till such time. This writ petition is disposed of as above.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

smp


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.