K.P.Unnikrishnan vs Assistant Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K.P.Unnikrishnan vs Assistant Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2008

Bench: K.M.Joseph

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32727 of 2008(U)


1. K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN , AGED 59 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                       ...       Respondent

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ,K.S.E.B TIRUR

3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TIRUR.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.NIRMAL. S

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :07/11/2008

 O R D E R
                                    K.M.JOSEPH, J.
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            WP.(C) No. 32727 of 2008
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008

                                      JUDGMENT

Petitioner is faced with Exts.P2 and P3. By Ext.P2 petitioner is called upon to remit a sum of Rs. 2,12,737/-. It is stated that connection is dismantled for non-payment of electricity charges. Arrears are claimed from April, 2005 to December, 2007. Interest and further cost of three phase meter and one phase meter are added and after deducting cash deposit, the amount is arrived at. Ext.P3 is the notice under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader.

3. According to the petitioner, petitioner's connection was dismantled as early as in January, 2005 and the arrears are sought for the period from April, 2005 to December, 2007. Petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation for excluding him from high charges under the minimum guarantee agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that after dismantling, he cannot be called upon to pay the agreement charges.

4. As far as this question is concerned, the matter is covered against the petitioner by virtue of the decision reported in Rajesh v. WPC.32727/2008. 2 K.S.E.B. (2006(1) K.L.T. 686). As per the same, the party will be liable to continue to pay the amount under the minimum guarantee agreement. However, since petitioner has preferred Ext.P1, a decision has to be taken on the question as to whether the line has become self remunerative.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P1 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If a decision has already been taken on Ext.P1, this direction need not be complied with. However, if a decision has already been taken, a copy of the decision will be given to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 will be kept in abeyance for a period of two months on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.50,000/- within three weeks from today.

(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court