High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-05-31Writ petitions disposed of: (i) petitioners to ...

Sunil Mathew and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 3048 of 2016 (E)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2016-05-31
Court Decision / Holding: i) The petitioners shall pay the outstanding bill amounts to the Electricity Board in six equal monthly installments starting from 01/07/2016, and shall continue to pay regular monthly bills thereafter. ii) The dispute between the petitioners and the Agricultural Department of the Government shall be settled between themselves in accordance with law, and it shall be open for the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings against them, as warranted by law. The court did not issue a direction prohibiting the Board from collecting payments but ensured a structured installment plan pending resolution between the Department and the petitioners.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of: (i) petitioners to pay outstanding electricity charges in six post-dated installments commencing 01/07/2016 and continue regular payments; (ii) dispute between petitioners and the Agricultural Department to be settled between the parties; petitioners may pursue appropriate proceedings against the Department as per law; no injunction against collection granted; continuity of tariff changes acknowledged by the court accordingly; (iii) no further directions issued against the Electricity Board beyond facilitating installment payments.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sunil Mathew
Thomas Joseph
Ajayakumar T
Kuryan Abraham
Rajan Bhaskaran
Manjula
Shajimon K.R
Rajamma
C.K. Sreedharan
Augustine
Radhamaniyamma
Thomas Ulahannan
Raju George
Pothan Mathy
P.A Varghese

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Karunapuram, Koottar PO, IDUKKI-685 552
The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Puttadi, Puttadi PO, IDUKKI-685 551
Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, represented by its Secretary, Vidyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004
The Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, Electrical Section, Vandanmedu, Puttadi, IDUKKI-685 551

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Murali Purushothaman
• Deeppu Lal Mohan
• Smt. Leena
• Sri. K.S. Premjith Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Lilly.K.T
• Sri.Sajeevkumar K.Gopal

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners are agriculturists who had entered into agreements with the Electricity Board, whereby the Agricultural Department of the State undertook to pay their electricity charges. Allegations that the Agricultural Department failed to meet these payments led to a writ petition seeking relief from disconnection and a stay of the higher charges. The Government contends that there has been a tariff change from agricultural to industrial tariff pursuant to orders of the Regulatory Commission; with higher tariffs, there is no obligation on the State to pay unless the tariff is restored or modified by law. The Electricity Board asserts that the petitioners and the State had executed written guaranties to pay the charges, and that the responsibility to pay lies with the parties, given the tariff change. The petitioners rely on a prior decision (M.K. Saidalavi) suggesting that once an arrangement with the Board is made, the scheme should continue. The court observes that the present case involves a tariff change notified by the Regulatory Commission, and hence all consumers are bound by the new tariff unless properly modified. It rules that a resolution of liability between petitioners and the Agricultural Department is necessary and that the Board may continue to recover the amount under the changed tariff. Ultimately, the court directs payment in installments and leaves the dispute between the petitioners and the Agricultural Department to be resolved by appropriate means, without directing the Board to suspend collection.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that there existed an arrangement with the Electricity Board under which the Agricultural Department undertook to pay the petitioners’ electricity bills. They contend that the Department’s failure to honor these arrangements has threatened disconnection. They assert that tariff changes—shift from agricultural to industrial tariff—result in higher charges, which should not fall on the petitioners under the original scheme. They rely on a prior judgment (M.K. Saidalavi) to claim Continuation of the scheme despite changes in tariff. They seek protection against disconnection and an opportunity to settle payments under the earlier regime, or at least time to adjust payments.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader contends that tariff changes notified by the Regulatory Commission bind all consumers; the State must not be compelled to pay the increased charges unless the tariff is restored. The Electricity Board argues that there were written guarantees by the petitioners and that either party—petitioners or Government—must pay when tariffs change; the Board is entitled to collect under the altered tariff and may disconnect for non-payment. The petitioners’ reliance on the Saidalavi decision is noted, but the court observes that the present tariff scenario is governed by the Regulatory Commission’s order, differentiating it from earlier facts and holding default cannot be equated with an entitlement to continued subsidies or schemes.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
M.K. Saidalavi v. Assistant Executive Engineer	04/03/2003	Distinguished	The court acknowledges the Saidalavi decision as part of the petitioners’ argument but distinguishes it on the facts since the present case involves a tariff change notified by the Regulatory Commission, which binds all consumers. The court declines to apply the Saidalavi reasoning to deny liability under the changed tariff.

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 Sunil Mathew and Others v. State of Kerala 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 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 3048 of 2016 (E) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** - **-------------** **1. SUNIL MATHEW, S/O VARKKEY MATHAI, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAYALILPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUZHITHOLU P.O., KUZHIKKANDAM, IDUKKI.** **2. THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULAMKKAL VEEDU, KUZHITHOLU P.O., KUZHIKKANDAM, IDUKKI.** **3. AJAYAKUMAR T, S/O THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT:SREEVILASAM HOUSE, KAMBAM MEDU PO, IDUKKI.** **4. KURYAN ABRAHAM, S/O ABRAHAM, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT VANIYAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, KAMBAM MEDT PO, IDUKKI.** **5. RAJAN BHASKARAN, S/O BHASKARAN, AGED 49 YEARS, VENUS S.G., RESIDING AT CHURALANLIL HOUSE, KUZHITHOLU PO, IDUKKI.** - ***6. JOHN T.G, S/O GEORGE, AGED 52 YEARS,** - **RESIDING AT THEKKEVALLAKKALAYIL HOUSE, KUZHITHOLU PO, IDUKKI.(DELETED)** **7. MANJULA, D/O NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PALAKKAL HOUSE, KUZHITHOLU PO, IDUKKI.** **8. SHAJIMON K.R, S/O N.K. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOOTHANADIYIL HOUSE, KUZHITHOLU PO, IDUKKI.** **9. RAJAMMA, D/O NEELAKANDAN, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOOTTATHIL HOUSE, KUZHOTHOLU PO, IDUKKI.** **10. C.K. SREEDHARAN, S/O KUTTAN, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHURANOLIL HOUSE, KUZHITHOLU PO, IDUKKI.** **--2--** **--2--** **WP(C).No. 3048 of 2016 (E) --------------------------** **11. AUGUSTINE, S/O MATHAYI, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDIG AT VATTAKAVUNGAL HOUSE, KUZHITHOLU PO, IDUKKI.** **12. RADHAMANIYAMMA, W/O PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT POUNGOTTU VEEDU, KOZHITHOLU PO, IDUKKI.** **13. THOMAS ULAHANNAN, S/O ULAHANNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALLICHIRA HOUSE, KUZHITHOLU PO, IDUKKI.** **14. RAJU GEORGE, S/O GEORGE, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELLATH HOUSE, RAJAKKANDAM PO, VANDAN MEDU, IDUKKI.** **15. POTHAN MATHYI,S/O MATHAYI, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEETTIL, KOCHARA PO, IDUKKI.** **16. P.A VARGHESE, S/O ABRAHAM, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHUPPALLATH HOUSE, KUZHITHOLU PO, IDUKKI.** *** THE NAME OF THE 6TH PETITIONER IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS ORDER DATED 08.03.2016 IN IA.3067/2016.** **BY ADVS.SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN SMT.S.LEENA SRI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** - **1.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2.THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KARUNAPURAM, KOOTTAR PO, IDUKKI-685 552** - **3.THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTTADI, PUTTADI PO, IDUKKI-685 551.** **--3--** **--3--** **WP(C).No. 3048 of 2016 (E)** **--------------------------** **4.KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** **5.THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VANDANMEDU, PUTTADY, IDUKKI-685 551.** **R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T R4 & R5 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2016 ALONG WITH WPC. 4261/2016 & 4773/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 3048 of 2016 (E) --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-----------------------** |**EXT.P1:**|**THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR**| |---|---| ||**NO 10880/PA3/05/AGRICULTURE DT. 4/5/05 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**AGRICULTURE (PLANNING) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF**| ||**KERALA.**| |**EXT.P2:**|**THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR ELECTRICITY**| ||**CONNECTION DT. NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 12TH PETITIONER**| ||**BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P3:**|**THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. KBK 12/11**| ||**DT. 1/2/12 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE**| ||**PURPOSE OF PRODUCING BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P4:**|**THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. K.B.K. 12/12**| ||**DT. 3/5/12 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXT.P5:**|**THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REGISTER**| ||**CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF THE FARMERS AVAILING THE**| ||**BENEFIT OF THE SCHEME THROUGH THE OFFICE OF 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P6:**|**THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT NO NIL DT. 5/9/14 ISSUED**| ||**BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR BULK PAYMENT MADE BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT TOWARDS ELECTRICITY CHARGES OF 55**| ||**BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE SCHEME.**| |**EXT.P7:**|**THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO NIL DT. 30/10/15**| ||**ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,**| ||**THOOKKUPALAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P8:**|**THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO KBK 12/15-16**| ||**DT. NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE ASSISTANT**| ||**ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THOOKKUPALAM.**| |**EXT.P9:**|**THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO DB 38/VMD/15-16**| ||**DT. 13/10/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST**| ||**PETITIONER.**| |**EXT.P10:**|**THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16**| ||**DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND**| ||**PETITIONER.**| |**EXT.P11:**|**THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16**| ||**DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD**| ||**PETITIONER.**| ||**--2--**| **--2--** ## **WP(C).No. 3048 of 2016 (E)** ## **--------------------------** **EXT.P12: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P13: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXT.P14: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER. EXT.P15: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER. EXT.P16: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER. EXT.P17: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER. EXT.P18: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH PETITIONER. EXT.P19: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 11TH PETITIONER. EXT.P20: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH PETITIONER. EXT.P21: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 13TH PETITIONER. EXT.P22: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 15/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 14TH PETITIONER. EXT.P23: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 14/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 15TH PETITIONER. EXT.P24: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. DB 38/VMD/15-16 DT. 13/1/16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 16TH PETITIONER. --3--** **--3--** ## **WP(C).No. 3048 of 2016 (E)** ## **--------------------------** **EXT.P25: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NO. NIL DT. 22/1/16 SUBMITTED BY THE 12TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **-----------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.Nos.3048, 4261 & 4773 of 2016 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of May 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners are all agriculturists who had entered into an agreement with the Electricity Board by which the Agricultural Department of the State had offered to pay the bill amounts of the petitioners. It is stated that the Agricultural Department failed to pay the bill amounts and there is a threat of disconnection. Therefore the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that there is a change of tariff. Earlier the bills were issued under the agricultural tariff whereas presently the bills are being issued under the industrial tariff. In so far as the tariff has been increased and the Government is called upon to pay higher amount, unless it is changed to agricultural tariff, there is no obligation on the part of the State to pay the amount. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Board submits that in addition to the agreement executed between the Board and the Government with reference to payment of electricity charges of the petitioners, petitioners W.P.C.Nos.3048, 4261 & 4773 of 2016 2 have also given an agreement in writing stating that they guarantee the payment of the bill, if at all there is failure on the part of the Government to pay the bill amounts. Under such circumstances, there is an obligation on the part of the petitioners also to pay the amount. That apart, the agricultural tariff has been changed to industrial tariff on the basis of orders issued by the Regulatory Commission. According to the Board, either the petitioners or the Government has to pay the bill amount and if at all there is any dispute between them, they have to sort it out by themselves. As far as the Board is concerned, it is entitled to collect the bill amounts for the last several months. If the bills are not paid, Board is entitled to disconnect the power connection. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however relies upon a judgment of this Court dated 04/03/2003 in **M.K.Saidalavi v. Assistant Executive Engineer** by which the learned Single Judge had formed an opinion that once the consumer make certain arrangements with the Board, they are entitled to continue with such scheme. 5. The question now is slightly different from the facts involved in the above case. Presently, there is a change in tariff W.P.C.Nos.3048, 4261 & 4773 of 2016 3 which is notified as per the directions issued by the Regulatory Commission. All consumers are bound by the said change in tariff unless it is modified, in accordance with law. Under such circumstances, it is for the petitioners and the Agricultural Department of the Government to take an appropriate decision regarding the liability to pay. Pending such resolution of the dispute, it cannot be stated that the Board is not entitled to collect the actual bill amount as per the changed tariff. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that there is no reason to issue any direction, as sought for in the writ petition whereas the only direction that can be given is to permit the petitioners to pay the amount and take up the matter with the Government and seek appropriate direction. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to pay the bill amount in instalments. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of as under: i) That the petitioners shall pay the outstanding bill amount due to the Electricity Board in six equal monthly instalments starting from 01/07/2016 and also pay the regular monthly bills. 4 W.P.C.Nos.3048, 4261 & 4773 of 2016 ii) The dispute between the petitioners and the Agricultural Department of the Government shall be settled between themselves and it shall be open for the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings against them, in accordance with law. (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr