Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Sree Sakthi Paper Mills Limited vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 10 August, 2007

Author: Kurian Joseph

Bench: Kurian Joseph

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 7056 of 2004(M)


1. SREE SAKTHI PAPER MILLS LIMITED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL AND TARIF

3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE)

4. THE PRINCIPALSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.C.MADHAVAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KSEB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :10/08/2007

 O R D E R
                       KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
              -----------------------------------------
                    W.P(C)No. 7056 of 2004
              -----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 10th day of August, 2007

                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner has mainly two grievances: (1) Ext.P10 amendment to the Regulations has been operated retrospectively; and (2) the effect of the amendment regarding the levy of interest has not been properly applied by the Board. Ext.P10 is the Regulation framed under Section 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 (Central Act 54 of 1948). It is now settled law that such Regulations will have effect only from the date of publication. (See the decision in Harla v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1951 SC 467). Therefore Ext.P10 can have effect only from the date of publication of the gazette. As far as the effect of the penalty is concerned, it is submitted that if the dates fall in two different months, penal interest at the rate of 24% is levied for two months. That is not contemplated under the Regulations. Part of a month, as per Ext.P10 amendment, has to be treated as one month for the purpose of calculating interest. That does not mean that if the due date falls in one month and W.P(C) NO.7056/2004 -:2:- remittance is in another month, and the delay in between is less than a month penal interest shall be levied for two months. The intention is only that penal interest will be levied for a month even if the delay is for part of a month. Therefore, it is clarified that for the only reason that the due date and remittance falls in two months there shall not be levy of penal interest for a period of two months in case the delay is not beyond 30 days. The bills already issued to the petitioner will be re-worked in the light of this judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and the amounts already remitted shall be duly adjusted.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) ahg.