Kerala High Court
St.Antony'S Engineering Theatre vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 1 October, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/27TH MAGHA 1933
WP(C).No. 13613 of 2011 (B)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONERS:
---------------------
ST.ANTONY'S ENGINEERING THEATRE,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1 MRA MEHAR BUILDING
S.N.COLLEGE JUNCTION, KOLLAM - 691 001
KERALA STATE.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION
CANTONMENT, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 001.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE
KOLLAM - 691 001.
4. THE KERALA STATE REGULATORY COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETRY, KPFC BHAVANAM
C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.
5. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM SOUTH ZONE,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, 691506.
R, R1-3 BY SRI.T.R.RAJAN, SC, K.S.E.B.
SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
R4 BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-02-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SU
WP(C).No. 13613 of 2011 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 01/10/2010 PREPARED BY THE SUB ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, CANTONMENT.
P2: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.BB/UUE/2010-
2011/146/12/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BB/APTS/UUE/2010-11/217 DATED 31/12/2010 ISSUED
BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 31/01/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT
TOWARDS PAYMENT OF THE = OF THE ASSESSED AMOUNT.
P6: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TARIFF ORDER ISSUED BY THE
KERALA STATE REGULATORY COMMISSION WITH EFFECT FROM 01/01/2010.
P7: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 21/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.344/CT/2011/KSERC/258 DATED 21/03/2011 ISSUED BY
THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
P9: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06/01/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.
P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/09/2011 IN O.P.NO.646/2011 PASSED BY THE
FIFTH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
SU
B.P.RAY, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.13613 of 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this writ application with the following reliefs:
"i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order, direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P8 issued by the fourth respondent and to quash the same.
ia) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order, direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P2 and P3 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same.
ib) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, compelling and commanding the fifth respondent to accept Ext.P9 complaint and to consider the same in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, pending such consideration to keep in abeyance all further proceedings, pursuant to Ext.P3 issued by the second respondent and hearing of Ext.P4 appeal.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, compelling and commanding the second respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation in accordance with law and within a time fame that this Hon'ble Court may consider reasonable,pending such consideration by the fourth respondent, the appeal preferred by the petitioner Exhibit P4 may be kept in abeyance."
2. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 order issued by the fourth respondent and prays for a direction to the fourth respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation on its merits by the Regulatory Commission, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law and within a stipulated time. W.P.(C) No.13613 of 2011 2
3. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P3 order also issued by the 2nd respondent and filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 3rd respondent.
4.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I direct that it is open to the petitioner to raise contentions on any relevant points as far as Ext.P8 order or other orders passed by the Regulatory Commission are concerned. Therefore, if a fresh appeal is preferred by the petitioner, then the concerned authority shall dispose of the same within three months after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner shall produce relevant material evidence before the 3rd respondent.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
B.P.RAY, JUDGE su