Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

The Assistant Engineer Vs. Ghee Varghese

The Assistant Engineer vs Ghee Varghese

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 22, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1095843

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Assistant Engineer

Respondent

Ghee Varghese

Excerpt

.....the petitioner could not produced annexures 1 and 2 documents, which are issued by the regulatory commission by way of clarification. issue involved in the writ petition was regarding insistence for payment of cost of transformer in cases where domestic connection is sought for. referring to the decision in abdul kareem v. kerala state electricity board [2013(1) klt25, this court observed that domestic consumers cannot be insisted for payment of cost of transformers, even if such connections are sought for with respect to residential buildings situated in 'villa projects'. this is because of the fact that the relevant regulation does not insist for payment of cost of transformer with respect to individual consumers who applies for connection independently.2. annexure 1 is a letter issued by the regulatory commission to the chairman of kseb. it only clarifies that while implementing clause 8(1)(c) of kerala supply code, the total load capacity of individual customers shall be clubbed together with respect to any building having height of less than 15 metres. annexure 2 is the circular issued by the kseb to all its officers to take note of annexure 1 in the matter of insisting for payment of the cost of transformer. in view of the dictum laid by this court in abdul kareem's case (supra), i do not think that the documents produced as annexures 1 and 2 has any bearing on the issue. therefore there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment and there is no failure to consider any relevant materials. hence the review petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. sd/- c.k. abdul rehim, judge av

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY,THE22D DAYOF OCTOBER201330TH ASWINA, 1935 RP.No. 804 of 2013 () IN WP(C).17970/2013 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

IN WP(C) 17970/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED23-07-2013 REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS1TO3IN WP(C) : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KUNNAMKULAM ELECTRICAL SECTION, KUNNAMKULAM THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN680001.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KUNNAMKULAM ELECTRICAL SECTION, KUNNAMKULAM THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN680001.

3. THE CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695004. BY ADV.SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 4TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GHEE VARGHESE S/O.KUTHOOR PAPPACHAN,KUTHOOR HOUSE, CHIRAMANENGAD PANNITHADAM PO, CHIRAMANENGAD VILLAGE THALAPPILLYTALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN680564.

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (POWER DEPARTMENT), POWER DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001. R1 BY ADV.SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P MANGUZHA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2210-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYPASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 804 of 2013 () IN WP(C).17970/2013 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ANNEXURE1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORYCOMMISSION TO THE CHAIRMAN, KSEB, DATED3108-2007 ANNEXURE2: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.PLG.COM.4405/01/2007-08 ISSUED BY THE BOARD DATED1710-2007 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.ATO JUDGE AV C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

------------------------------------ Review Petition No. 804 of 2013 IN W.P.(C).No. 17970 of 2013 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2013 ORDER

This review petition is filed on the premise that, due to an inadvertent omission the petitioner could not produced Annexures 1 and 2 documents, which are issued by the Regulatory Commission by way of clarification. Issue involved in the writ petition was regarding insistence for payment of cost of Transformer in cases where domestic connection is sought for. Referring to the decision in Abdul Kareem v. Kerala State Electricity Board [2013(1) KLT25, this Court observed that domestic consumers cannot be insisted for payment of cost of Transformers, even if such connections are sought for with respect to residential buildings situated in 'villa projects'. This is because of the fact that the relevant Regulation does not insist for payment of cost of Transformer with respect to individual consumers who applies for connection independently.

2. Annexure 1 is a letter issued by the Regulatory Commission to the Chairman of KSEB. It only clarifies that while implementing Clause 8(1)(c) of Kerala Supply Code, the total load capacity of individual customers shall be clubbed together with respect to any building having height of less than 15 metres. Annexure 2 is the circular issued by the KSEB to all its officers to take note of Annexure 1 in the matter of insisting for payment of the cost of Transformer. In view of the dictum laid by this Court in Abdul Kareem's case (Supra), I do not think that the documents produced as Annexures 1 and 2 has any bearing on the issue. Therefore there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment and there is no failure to consider any relevant materials. Hence the review petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE AV

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial