Kerala High Court
Sanil Kumar T.R vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 26 November, 2018
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 28437 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
SANIL KUMAR T.R
AGED 1 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.AMBER RUBBER RESOURCE, KONOOR,
NALUKKETTU P.O. THRISSUR DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VAIDYUTH BHAVAN, KSEB,
SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM 695001.
2 ASSISTANT ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, KORATTI-680308.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003.
4 DEPUTY TEHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY-680307.
5 VILLAGE OFFICER
MURIGOOR THEKKUMURI, CHALAKKUDY-680307.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR R., SC, KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR-SC, SRI.S.DILIP-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 28437 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Exts. P2 and P3, Short Assessment demands made against him by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short), primarily on the ground that it is hit by limitation. He also has a case that he is entitled to the security deposit earlier made by him and that the same is liable to be adjusted against Ext.P2 demand.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB, however, submits that the petitioners have not even raised any objection against Exts.P2 and P3 and that his connection was dismantled long ago. According to him, Revenue Recovery Action has already been initiated and that it will not be now equitable to allow the petitioner any further time when such action is still going on.
3. Even though I hear the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB as afore, the fact remains that the validity of Exts.P2 and P3 have not been tested by the petitioner before any other forum. I am certain that while I act under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it will not be permissible for me to delve in WP(C).No. 28437 of 2018 3 to these issues or to conclude affirmatively on the validity of Exts. P2 and P3 at the first instance, because this will require assessment of factual circumstances as also documents, which is not possible for this Court on account of well recognized constraints of jurisdiction in dealing with disputations of facts. I am consequently of the view that the petitioner should invoke alternative remedy so that the competent Forum can decide the validity of Exts. P2 and P3 before Revenue Recovery Action can be allowed to culminate finally.
4. In the afore perspective, without entering into the merits of any of the contentions of either of the sides and without saying anything on the validity of Exts.P2 and P3, I permit the petitioner to move the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF for short) Thrissur, within an appropriate petition/representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such representation is received by the CGRF within the time granted herein they will proceed to consider the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as also the representatives of the KSEB, within a further period of two weeks thereafter.
Needless to say, until such time as a decision is taken by WP(C).No. 28437 of 2018 4 the CGRF and communicated to the petitioner, all further action pursuant to the Revenue Recovery requisition shall stand deferred. I further clarify that if the petitioner fails in making a representation to the CGRF within the time granted herein or if the order of the CGRF, consequent to the exercise are ordered herein, is to its detriment, the KSEB will be at liberty to pursue with the Revenue Recovery Action from the stage at which it is obtained today., subject to the remedies that the petitioner may have against the said order.
This Writ Petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Dxy WP(C).No. 28437 of 2018 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINIMUM GUARANTEE AGREEMENT DATED 01.1.2008.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER DATED 20.3.2017 ALONG WITH A TRUE COPY OF CURRENT BILL DATED 20.3.2017 AND SHORT ASSESSMENT STATEMENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SEC.7 NOTICE ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER DATED 7.7.2018