High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2010-10-14Writ petition disposed of; settlement reached w...

Sathyaprakash v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 23732 of 2007(A)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Siri Jagan
Judgment Date: 2010-10-14
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. Rs.50,000 remitted by the petitioner is to be treated as full and final settlement of all minimum guarantee dues under Ext.P8; the petitioner is not liable to pay any further amount. The court declines to remand for fresh consideration given the long pendency and closes the dispute on the stated settlement.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; settlement reached with Rs.50,000 treated as full and final settlement; no further payment due.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sathyaprakash, S/o Raman, aged 41 years, residing at 'Kavitha', Thandavayal, Koyilandy P.O.

Respondents

Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vydhuthibhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kerala State Electricity Board, Koyilandy
Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board, Koyilandy
Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board, Koyilandy
District Collector, Kozhikode
Tahsildar (R.R.), Vadakara
Village Officer, Keezhariyor, Koyilandy

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P.C. Haridas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P.P. Thajudeen, SC, K.S.E.B (R1-R4)
• Sri. P. Nandakumar, Govt Pleader (R5-R7)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sathyaprakash, a petitioner who ran a Small Scale Industrial Unit, sought electricity service and entered into a minimum guarantee agreement in November 1997. The unit closed in 1999. The petitioner contends that by the time of closure the distribution line had become remunerative, since more than 50 connections were supplied from the same transformer to other users, which should render the minimum guarantee payable only if the system is not self-remunerative; thus after closure he should pay only energy charges and not the minimum guarantee. Respondents directed payment of Rs. 2,98,470 for periods after 1999. The matter went through Adalat, and Ext.P6 order was passed rejecting the petitioner’s contentions. In a prior petition, WP(C) No. 29493/03, the court directed consideration of the appeal (Ext.P10), but Ext.P12 rejected it. The respondents argued the system had not become self-remunerative, a position claimed to be settled by a Division Bench decision in Rajesh v. Kerala State Electricity Board. The court examined the rival contentions, observing that while the petitioner provided evidence of multiple connections from the same transformer, there was no material to fix the exact date the system became self-remunerative. Since the dispute had persisted for over a decade, the court opted for a quietus and directed a settlement by Rs.50,000 already remitted, treating it as full and final settlement of all minimum guarantee dues, with no further payment required. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Clause 4 of Ext.P8 (Minimum Guarantee Agreement)Sections 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act (R.R. Act)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Clause 4 of Ext.P8 minimum guarantee agreement provides that payment of the minimum guarantee amount is due only if the system is not self-remunerative. After the unit’s closure in 1999, the distribution line allegedly became remunerative due to the high number of connections arising from the same transformer, indicating self-remuneration. Therefore, the petitioner argues he is not liable to pay the minimum guarantee post-closure and should be charged only energy charges. He points to Ext.P3, Ext.P4 notices and the evidence of multiple consumer connections from the same transformer to demonstrate self-remuneration. He seeks a declaration that no further minimum guarantee is payable and cites the earlierWP(C) No. 29493/03 (Ext.P10).

Contentions of Respondents

The Board contends that the system did not become self-remunerative; hence the petitioner remains liable for the minimum guarantee amount after 1999. It relies on the Board’s assessment in Ext.P6 and Ext.P12 denial of contentions, arguing that the connection of additional consumers from the transformer does not prove self-remuneration. The respondents rely on the settled position as stated by Rajesh v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2006 (1) KLT 686) to maintain that the petitioner’s obligation persists, and the date from which self-remuneration arises must be determined by a detailed factual enquiry, which has not been satisfactorily established. They urge dismissal or substantial maintenance of the demand.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajesh v. Kerala State Electricity Board	2006 (1) KLT 686	Positive	The Division Bench decision is cited as establishing the settled legal position regarding minimum guarantee charges and the effect of the system becoming self-remunerative; the present court uses it as a backdrop for its consideration of the dispute.

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 Sathyaprakash v. Kerala State Electricity Board 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 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932** ## **WP(C).No. 23732 of 2007(A)** **-------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** - **------------------** **SATHYAPRAKASH, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT "KAVITHA", THANDAVAYAL, KOYILANDY P.O.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-----------------------** **1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHIBHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOYILANDY.** **3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOYILANDY.** **4. SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOYILANDY.** **5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.** **6. TAHSILDAR (R.R.), VADAKARA.** **7. VILLAGE OFFICER, KEEZHARIYOR, KOYILANDY.** - **R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R5 TO R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **...2/-** ## **WP(C).No. 23732 of 2007(A) -2-** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.06.02 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 06-07-02 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04-12-02 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05-12-02 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-03-2003 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE APPEAL AGAINST EXT.P6.** - **EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE MODEL FORM OF THE MINIMUM GUARANTEE AGREEMENT.** - **EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE R.R. NOTICES U/Ss.7 AND 34 OF THE R.R. ACT.** - **EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 29493/03.** - **EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02-07-07 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-03-04 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.** - **EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WHILE ISSUING EXT.P12 DT. 18/7/07.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.23732 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of October, 2010.** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner started a Small Scale Industrial Unit. He applied for an electricity connection to that unit. He executed a minimum guarantee agreement for such connection in November, 1997. Petitioner closed the unit in 1999. According to the petitioner by the time the petitioner closed the unit, the line had become remunerative since more than 50 connections were given from the same transformer and, therefore, in view of Clause 4 of the minimum guarantee agreement, the petitioner is not liable to pay the minimum guarantee amount, but only the actual energy charges. Therefore the petitioner did not pay the minimum guarantee amount after closure of the unit in 1999. By Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioner was directed to pay the minimum guarantee amount amounting to Rs.2,98,470/- for periods subsequent to 1999. The petitioner represented against the same. In the Adalat conducted by first respondent, there was an agreement that the 4[th] respondent would re-examine the matter. But the 4[th] respondent without considering whether the system 2 **W.P.(C).No.23732 OF 2007** had become self-remunerative as contended by the petitioner, passed Ext.P6 order, rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.29493 of 2003, in which By Ext.P10 judgment, the second respondent was directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner. That appeal was rejected by Ext.P12 order. The contention of the petitioner is that, in view of Clause 4 of Ext.P8 minimum guarantee agreement, which lays down that the petitioner need pay the minimum guarantee amount only if till the system becomes self-remunerative. He submits that he has pointed out not less than 50 connection from the same transformer installed for the purpose of giving connection to the petitioner with consumer number and by-monthly amounts paid by those consumers. According to the petitioner the same would show that the line had become self remunerative and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay any minimum guarantee amount after 1999. 2. The contention of the respondents as revealed in the counter affidavit is that the system had not become selfremunerative as contended by the petitioner and, therefore, he is liable to pay the minimum guarantee amount even after the **W.P.(C).No.23732 OF 2007** 3 closure of the unit, which legal position is settled by the Division Bench decision of this Court in _**Rajesh v. Kerala State Electricity Board, (2006 (1) KLT686).**_ 3.I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The respondent had not chosen to controvert the specific statement of petitioner that more than 50 electricity connections have been given from the same transformer which catered to the needs of the petitioner's unit. As revealed in Ext.P6, the contention of the respondent is that although those connections were so given from that transformer, those connections could also have been given from another transformer nearby. In Ext.P12 order there is no consideration of any of the contentions of the petitioner. The only finding therein is that the office had conducted a detailed enquiry in the matter and he find no reason to interfere in the decision of Sub Engineer in charge that the appellant is not eligible for any concession in payment of minimum guarantee charges. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit by the respondents they have specifically stated that it is because the petitioner's need could not be met from the other transformer that a new transformer had to be installed for giving connection to the petitioner. That statement, to a great extent disproves the **W.P.(C).No.23732 OF 2007** 4 contention in Ext.P6. Even otherwise, what is to be considered is not whether the respondents could have given the additional connections from some other transformer, but whether after giving other connections from this transformer the system had become self-remunerative. Therefore simply because the respondents could have given those connections from another transformer, the petitioner does not become disentitled to the benefits of Clause 4 of Ext.P8 agreement if in fact after giving those connections from the transformer catering to the needs of the petitioner, the system had in fact become self-remunerative. There is no categorical averment in the counter affidavit that despite those additional connections the system had not become self-remunerative. As I have already stated, the petitioner had given details of the consumer numbers and amounts paid by them. The petitioner's contention is that those are not exhaustive and other connections were also given from very same transformer. That being so, I am unable to countenance the contention of the respondents that the system had not become self-remunerative. 4. But still there is no material before me to decide as to from which date the system became self-remunerative, for which 5 **W.P.(C).No.23732 OF 2007** the dates of giving the connections to various consumers also has to be ascertained, for which there is no material before me. Even then since the issue is hanging fire for more than 10 years, I am inclined to give the dispute a quietus instead of remanding the matter for fresh consideration. 5. Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioners has remitted Rs.50,000/- out of the amounts demanded. I am inclined to direct the respondents to treat the same as full and final settlement of all amounts due to the respondents from the petitioner towards the minimum guarantee amount as per Ext.P8 minimum guarantee agreement. It is declared that petitioner do not have to pay any further amount in respect thereof. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ## **S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.** mns