K.P. ABOOBACKER v. SUB ENGINEER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of as above
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The contention raised in the writ petition is that if at all, additional cash deposit can be demanded only in the first quarter ofthe financial year. It is also contended that the same has to beworked out on the basis of preceding two months'…
Judgment
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.-------------------------W.P.(C.) No.30847 of 2008---------------------------------Dated, this the 15th day of June, 2009J U D G M E N TChallenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 notices issuedby the respondent Board calling upon the petitioner to makeadditional cash deposit.
Facts of the case are that the petitioner is an LT IVconsumer with consumer Nos.61 & 62. The petitioner had madesecurity deposit of Rs.28,672/- and Rs.15,786/- for the aforesaidtwo consumer numbers. By Ext.P1 notices referred to above, he hasbeen called upon to make additional cash deposit of Rs.29,874/-and Rs.15,285/- for consumer Nos.61 & 62 respectively. Thesenotices are dated 24/09/2008. On its receipt, this writ petition hasbeen filed challenging the same.
Operative part
The contention raised in the writ petition is that if at all, additional cash deposit can be demanded only in the first quarter ofthe financial year. It is also contended that the same has to beworked out on the basis of preceding two months' bill amounts. WP(C) No.30847/2008-2-4.Having considered this issue, I feel, the matter is coveredby Clause 15 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 framedby the respondent Board. In terms of Clause 15, any person, whorequires supply of electricity to his premises shall have to providesecurity for payment of money due to the Board in respect ofelectricity supplied to such person. Clause 15(4) being relevantreads as under:-
Clause 15(4):The Board will review the adequacy of securityof all consumers in the first quarter of every financial year orwhen tariff revision is effected based on the average consumptionof the preceding financial year and charges and tariffs in force. Based on the review, the Board will demand for shortfall or adjustthe excess security in the first quarter itself as the case may be, by giving 30 days notice to the consumer.
A reading of this provision shows that the Board is entitled to reviewthe adequacy of security of all consumers in the first quarter ofevery financial year, and based on the review, demand remittance ofthe short fall in the first quarter itself. Ext.P1 demands were madeonly on 24/09/2008. If that be so, the demand has not been madein the first quarter of the financial year. In that respect Ext.P1 isbelated and cannot be enforced. WP(C) No.30847/2008-3-5.However, the other contention raised by the petitionerthat the demand has to be made based on two months' averageconsumption, does not seem to be of supported by any Clause inthe Terms and Conditions of Supply. 6. In the light of the above, the writ petition will standdisposed of quashing Ext.P1 as belated, and leaving it open to the Board to demand additional cash security, if any due, in the manneras provided in Clause 15 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply. 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 known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.