Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePartially allowed; Ext.P6 to the extent of 3x t...

A.K. Muhammed Ashraf v. Assistant Executive Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad (K.S.E.B), Kozhikode and others

Case / Petition Number:OP No. 20046 of 1999 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH
Judgment Date
2012-04-03
Court Decision / Holding
Partial relief granted. Ext.P8’s revised demand is to be recomputed so that 6,400 units are billed at 1.5 times the normal tariff for the six-month period from the date of inspection, with credit given for the Rs.25,000 already remitted and no penal interest levied after 24.7.1999. The Original Petition is disposed of in part with these directions, dissolving the excess 3x tariff component from Ext.P6.
Final Disposition
Partially allowed; Ext.P6 to the extent of 3x tariff quashed; revised bill to be issued at 1.5x tariff for 6,400 units with credit for prior remittances; penal interest not to be levied after 24.7.1999; petition disposed of as directed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • A.K. MUHAMMED ASHRAF, MANAGING PARTNER, TASHCO INDUSTRIES, POINACHI, THEKKIL P.O, KASARAGODE

Respondents

  • ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD(K.S.E.B) REGIONAL UNIT, KOZHIKODE
  • THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KASARAGODE
  • THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, (H.Q) VIGILANCE WING, K.S.E.B., TRIVANDRUM

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB
  • • SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, A.K. Muhammed Ashraf, is the managing partner of Tashco Industries, a PVC pipe manufacturer. An inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad of K.S.E.B. on 9.3.1999 found irregularities, leading to reassessment notices Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 for electricity charges. He challenged these in Ext.P3 and later filed O.P.7739 of 1999 seeking disposal of the appeal and other reliefs; this court’s Ext.P4 judgment disposed of that matter and Ext.P6 issued an appellate order. Based on Ext.P6, Ext.P8 issued a demand for reassessment. The petitioner argues Ext.P6 fixes 6,400 units per month and recharges at three times the normal tariff, which, he contends, violates statutory tariff norms and a Division Bench ruling in 2005(1) KLT 406 (KSEB v. Najeeb) holding that K.S.E.B. cannot levy triple charges and may only levy 1.5 times the tariff. He seeks relief to quash the 3x charge and have a revised bill calculated at 1.5x for six months from the date of inspection, with credit for payments already made (including Rs.25,000 remitted after Ext.P6) and no penal interest after 24.7.1999. The court partially allows the petition, directing revision of the bill accordingly. The petition is disposed of in part with penal interest exemption after the specified date and credit for remitted amounts.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P6 fixed the monthly consumption at 6,400 units and reassessed electricity charges at three times the normal tariff, which is illegal. Relying on the Division Bench ruling in 2005(1) KLT 406 (KSEB v. Najeeb), he submits that K.S.E.B. has no power to charge three times the tariff and that charges should be calculated at 1½ times the tariff. He seeks quashing Ext.P6 to the extent of 3x, directing reassessment at 1.5x for the six months from the date of inspection, and crediting amounts already remitted (notably Rs.25,000). He also seeks no penal interest to be levied after 24.7.1999 and a revised bill accordingly (Ext.P8).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended Ext.P6 as a valid reassessment based on detected irregularities and consumption patterns. They argued that the tariff framework permits recovery of arrears through appropriate multipliers to ensure revenue realization and to reflect actual consumption. They urged that Ext.P6 should stand and the petition should be dismissed or limited in scope, contending that the Board’s actions were consistent with tariff rules and administrative practice. They also pressed that credits for prior payments should be incorporated into any revised bill and that any penalties would be governed by the applicable tariff and statutory provisions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
KSEB v. Najeeb2005(1) KLT 406PositiveCited to support the proposition that K.S.E.B. cannot levy three times the normal tariff; charges should be limited to 1.5 times, as held by the Division Bench in 2005(1) KLT 406.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against A.K. Muhammed Ashraf v. Assistant Executive Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad (K.S.E.B), Kozhikode and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2012/14TH CHAITHRA 1934 OP.No. 20046 of 1999 (J) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------- A.K. MUHAMMED ASHRAF, MANAGING PARTNER, TASHCO INDUSTRIES, POINACHI, THEKKIL P.O, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD(K.S.E.B) REGIONAL UNIT, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KASARAGODE. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, (H.Q) VIGILANCE WING, K.S.E.B., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **O.P. NO.20046 of 1999** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.E14 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15.3.99 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.E10 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1999 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DTD. 19.3.99 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.3.99 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 9.3.99 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 9.7.99 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.12.95 OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KASARAGODE EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.06089 DATED 24.7.99 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO. 6352 DTD. 28.5.99 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO.6352 DATED 29.6.99. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO.6352 DATED 27.7.99 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO.6352 DATED 31.8.99 EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO.6352 DATED 30.9.99 EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO.6352 DATED 30.10.99 ## **O.P. NO.20046 of 1999** EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO.6352 DATED 30.11.99. EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO.6352 DATED 30.12.99 EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO.6352 DATED 29.1.00. EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO.6352 DATED 29.2.00. EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO.6352 DATED 30.3.00. EXT.P20 TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CON. NO.6352 DATED 29.4.00. EXT.P21 TRUE COPY OF TRUE LABLE IN DICATING FIXED CHARGES, CURRENT CHARGES, DUTY AND TOTAL AMOUNT FROM APRIL 1999 - MARCH 2000. ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** NIL [ True copy ] P.S. to Judge. ul/- ## **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J. -----------------------------------------0.P.(C) No. 20046 OF 1999 -------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 3[rd] day of April, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is the managing partner of Tashco Industries, Poinachi, Kasaragod. This industry is engaged in manufacturing P.V.C. Pipes and other products. The Anti Power Theft Squad of the K.S.E.B. conducted inspection of the electricity meter of this industry on 9.3.1999 and found irregularities, based on which re-assessment of electricity charges were made and Ext.P1 demand notice for an amount of Rs.49,876/- and Ext.P2 demand notice for an amount of Rs.16,218/- were issued. The petitioner challenged Exts.P1 and P2 in Ext.P3 appeal before the 3[rd] respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.P.No.7739 of 1999 before this Court for a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by him and for other reliefs. That O.P. was disposed of by this Court ## **0.P.(C) No. 20046 OF 1999** **:2 :** by Ext.P4 judgment. Thereafter, disposing of the appeal, the 3[rd] respondent has issued Ext.P6 order. Based on Ext.P6 appellate order, Ext.P8 demand notice reassessing the amount has been issued to the petitioner. Aggrieved by Exts.P1, P2, P6 and P8, the petitioner has preferred this Original Petition. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3[rd] respondent in the appellate order fixed 6,400 units as monthly consumption and reassessed the electricity charges at 3 times of the normal rate of the tariff applicable to 6,400 units per month for the past six months from the date of inspection. This is illegal. In the light of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in **2005(1) KLT 406(KSEB v. Najeeb),** the K.S.E.B. has no power to charge three times of the tariff and they can charge only at the rate equal to 1½ times of the tariff, he further submits. In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this ## **0.P.(C) No. 20046 OF 1999** **:3 :** Court, reassessment of the electricity charges at three times of the normal rates of the tariff has to be found illegal and to that extent Ext.P6 is liable to be quashed. The 3[rd] respondent has also directed in Ext.P6 that the amounts already paid shall be given credit to. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after passing Ext.P6 order, the petitioner remitted Rs.25,000/- and that also shall be given credit to. In view of these facts, this original petition can be allowed in part with the following directions. In the result, Ext.P8 revised demand for payment of electricity charges shall be further revised by calculating the electricity charges for 6,400/- units at a rate equal to 1½ times of the normal tariff and giving credit to the entire amounts already remitted by the petitioner and such a revised bill shall be issued to the petitioner. Penal interest shall not be levied for the period after 24.7.1999, the date ## **0.P.(C) No. 20046 OF 1999** **:4 :** of Ext.P8 bill. This original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE** ul/- _[True copy]_ _P.S. to Judge._ ## **0.P.(C) No. 20046 OF 1999** **:5 :** ## **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J..** **= = = = = = = = = = O.P.No. 20046 OF 1999 = = = = = = = = = = =** **J U D G M E N T** **3[rd] April, 2012.**