Kerala High Court
M/S.S.V.A.Steels Re-Rolling Mills Ltd vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 7 April, 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
SATURDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WP(C).No. 16135 of 2008 (U)
-------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
M/S.S.V.A.STEELS RE-ROLLING MILLS LTD.,
NALEPPILLY VILLAGE,
NATTUKAL P.O., PALAKKAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
R.ELANGOVAN.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SRIKUMAR
SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN
SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE),
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), K.S.E.B.
VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
(COMMERCIAL & THERMAL), K.S.E.B.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
SRI.S.SHARAN,SC,K.S.E.BOARD
SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DCS
WP(C).No. 16135 of 2008 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 21468 DATED 07.04.1998
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 17093 DATED 15.05.1998
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.01.2008 IN O.P. NO. 15639/1998
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2008 IN R.P. NO. 259/2008
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. HTB-29/2965 DATED 12.03.2008
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. HTB-29/2965/459 DATED 06.08.1998
EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 05.04.2008
EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.04.2008
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
DCS
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 16135 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Dispute pertains to electricity charges demanded from the petitioner for the months of March and April, 1998. The said dispute was the subject matter of agitation in OP No.15639/1998, filed by the petitioner. In Ext.P3 judgment the said writ petition was dismissed. However this court permitted the petitioner to pay the amount in 3 equal monthly installments, commencing from March 2008 onwards. Eventhough the petitioner attempted a review of Ext.P3 judgment the same was dismissed in Ext.P4.
2. It is stated that, after Ext.P4 judgment an erroneous demand was raised as per Ext.P5, which was objected to by the petitioner in Ext.P7. Considering those objections the 2nd respondent had revised the demand and the amount has been considerably reduced. Exhibit.P8 is the revised demand now issued. The petitioner is W.P.(c) No.16135/2008 -2- challenging Ext.P8 on the ground that demand for the huge amount of interest @24% is highly unreasonable and improper. It is also contended that 50% of the electricity duty demanded under Ext.P8 is not leviable. However it is conceded that about 2/3rd of the amount has already been paid. This court cannot enter upon any adjudication regarding correctness of the demand and the levy of interest, because it requires evaluation of various disputed facts and materials. I am of the view that the petitioner can be relegated to the 1st respondent Board for redressal of grievance if any against Ext.P8.
3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent Board with a proper representation raising dispute against correctness of Ext.P8 and also seeking waiver of interest, if any possible. If any such representation is filed before the 1st respondent within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the 1st respondent after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. An W.P.(c) No.16135/2008 -3- appropriate decision shall be taken in the matter at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of such representation.
4. Considering the fact that there existed an interim stay with respect to collection of the balance amount during pendency of this writ petition, I am inclined to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery of the balance due under Ext.P8, till a decision is taken by the Board as directed above, provided the petitioner submits a representation as directed within the time limit stipulated.
5. It is also left open to the petitioner to approach the authorities of the Board to avail benefits of the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' if any in force.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A to Judge