Kerala High Court
C. Beenakumari vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 6 December, 2012
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/15TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WP(C).No. 29147 of 2012 (P)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
C. BEENAKUMARI,
W/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS
PROPRIETARY, VANITHA METALS, K.P.ROAD, PARAYANKULAM
CHARUMOODU PIN - 695 505, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM)
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA 690 101.
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION
CHARUMOOD, PIN - 690 505, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
W.P.(C) NO.29147/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT.P-1:- COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.S.NO.501/2001 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S
COURT, MAVELIKKARA DTD 07.12.2005.
EXT.P-2:- COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DTD.24.01.2005.
EXT.P-3:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD 28.01.2005 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER.
EXT.P-4:- COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN A.S.NO.46/2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE II, MAVELIKKARA DTD 10.07.2012.
EXT.P-5:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 17.09.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.06.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-7:- COPY OF THE BILL AND APPENDIX THEREWITH DTD.20.11.2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
tss
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 29147 OF 2012
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 demand. It is evident that 'short assessment bills' were issued against the petitioner for the months of 5/2001 and 12/2001. The petitioner had challenged those bills by filing a suit as O.S. No.501/2001, before the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara. Subsequently she had filed appeal as A.S. No.46/2007 before the Additional District Court-II, Mavelikkara. It is evident that the petitioner has filed other civil suits also challenging various demands. It is submitted that a Second Appeal filed against the judgment in the Appeal Suit is pending before this court.
2. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7. On dismissal of the suit and the appeal, demand was raised for payment of the amounts covered under the 'short assessment bills' and for current charges due for the months of 5/2001 and from 7/2003 to 12/2004, totalling to a W.P.(c) No.29147/2012 -2- sum of Rs.4,83,639/-. In Ext.P7, surcharge was also claimed for the period from 5/2001 to 11/2012 to the tune of Rs.9,59,352/-. According to the petitioner, the exorbitant amount of surcharge demanded is totally unjustifiable. It is also contended that for certain periods payment of monthly bills were not accepted by the authorities of the Board due to pendency of the civil suit and only after directions issued by the Executive Engineer as per Ext.P3, such amounts were accepted.
3. Dispute regarding correctness of the computations in the demand cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. Going by the relevant statute the petitioner is liable for payment of surcharge on delayed payment of amounts due to the Board. Since it is evident that challenges against the demands were discarded by virtue of judgments of the civil courts, this court cannot hold that the levy of surcharge is in any manner illegal.
4. However, standing counsel appearing for the respondents had pointed out that a scheme for 'One Time Settlement' to permitting settlement of long pending W.P.(c) No.29147/2012 -3- arrears, introduced by the Electricity Board, is in force till the end of December, 2012. If the petitioner approaches the competent authority for settlement of the arrears under the scheme, the same shall be considered. It is left open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority seeking settlement under the above same scheme. In such case the competent authority shall consider the same and shall take appropriate decision in accordance with terms of the Scheme.
5. For facilitating the petitioner to approach the competent authority seeking 'One Time Settlement', coercive steps of recovery initiated under Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A to Judge