C.M. SHAMSUDEEN v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of as above
Judgment
W.P.(C) NO.34223/2005APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WA. NO.1963/04 DT.28.10.04.P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE IST RESPONDENT NO. IA.VI/18561/04 DT. 24.12.04.P3:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.GB/GEN1/2004-05/1812DT. 4.2.05.P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 24.2.05 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2NDRESPONDENT.P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THECHAIRMAN OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 8.8.04.P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.17698/04 DT. 23.8.04.TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGETSS ANTONY DOMINIC, J.-------------------------W.P.(C.) No.34223 of 2005---------------------------------Dated, this the 15th day of June, 2009J U D G M E N TThe petitioner challenges Exts.P2 & P3. 2.It is stated that the petitioner is an agriculturist having athree phase connection. According to the petitioner, in July, 1996,the meter installed in his premises was found defective, and thebills were not issued thereafter. There were several litigationsbetween the parties and finally, in Ext.P2 order passed by theChairman of the Board in pursuance to the judgment in Writ AppealNo1963/2004, the liability of the petitioner was quantified atRs.52,997/-. In pursuance to Ext.P2, Ext.P3 was issued by theExecutive Engineer, Ponnani. It is these proceedings which areunder challenge.3.The main contention that is raised by the petitionerbefore this Court is that while quantifying the liability under Exts.P2& P3, Rs.10,000/- paid by the petitioner following the directions inthe judgment in O.P.No.7395/2002 was not given credit. Yet WP(C) No.34223/2005-2-another complaint is regarding the levy of Rs.410/- for the periodfrom 18 months from December, 1997 to May, 1999 and alsoRs.538/- for 12 months from June 1999 to May, 2000. 4.The learned standing counsel for the respondent Boardsubmits that after the spot billing system was introduced in June,2002, since the meter was lying faulty at that time, it was taking theaverage of the subsequent six months' consumption that thedemand was raised. It is also stated that the complaint of thepetitioner regarding the calculation made in Exts.P2 & P3, can bere-examined by the 3rd respondent.5.Taking into account the submissions thus made, Idispose of the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent toexamine:-(1) whether in calculating the dues of the petitioner as per Exts.P2& P3, Rs.10,000/- paid by the petitioner in pursuance to thejudgment in O.P.No.7395/2002 was given credit;(2) whether levy of Rs.410/- for 18 months from December 1997to May 1999, and Rs.538/- for 12 months from June 1999 to May2000 was also justified while taking the average of the consumption WP(C) No.34223/2005-3-for the period subsequent to June, 2000. It is directed that once the calculation is made as above, it will beopen to the respondent Board to demand the actual dues from thepetitioner.6.The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, before the 3rd respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)jg
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of as above
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 15 Jun 2009. The bench was ANTONY DOMINIC, RUE COPY P A JUDGETSS ANTONY DOMINIC.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.