Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE25H DAY OF FEBRUARY20146TH PHALGUNA, 1935 OP.No. 39849 of 2002 (R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------------- P. CHANDRAN, S/O. P. KANNAN, AGED45YEARS, KARUVACHERRY, P.O. NILESHWARAM KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, NILESHWARAM.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, NILESHWARAM.
3. PRAVEENA, D/O. CHITHARI KUNHAMED, MARKET ROAD, NILESHWAR. (DELETED) R3 IS DELETED VIDE ORDER
DATED252.2014 IN I.A. NO. 669 OF2003R1 &2 BY ADV. SRI.P. SANTHALINGAM (SENIOR) & SRI. S. SARAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2502-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP398492002 2 C.M.P. NO. 66749 OF2002& I.A.NO. 3501 OF 2004 IN O.P. NO. 39849 OF 2002 CLOSED. Sd/-BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH,JUDGE252.2014 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S XTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DB132001-02 DT. 4.2.2002 OF THE1T RESPONDENT. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED212.2002 OF THE PETITIONER. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED222.2002 OF THIS COURT IN OP58502002. P4: TRUE CPY OF THE ORDER
BEARING NO. BB412002-03/79 DT. 17.7.2002 ISSUED BY THE1T RESPONDENT TO THE3D RESPONDENT. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO. 47102 (CONSUMER NO. 13308) ISSUED TO3D RESPONDENT. P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED257.2002 OF THIS COURT IN OP NO. 20944/02. P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED58.2002 OF THE PETITIONER. P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER
BEARING NO. GB-1/OP NO. 20944/02(R)/ 01-02/1060 DT. 19.8.2002 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE OP398492002 3 PETITIONER. P9: TRUE COPY OF THE TEST REPORT DATED298.2002 OF WIREMAN DIRECTED BY THE1T RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF POWER CONNECTIONS AND THE GRAPHIC PICTURE OF ELECTRIC POINTS OF THE PREMISE. P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED412.2002 ISSUED BY DEPUTY ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KASARAGOD. P11: TRUE COPY OF BILL NO. 71935 IN RESPECT OF CONSUMER NO. 13308 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS..22,034/-. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NILESHWAR ks. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.
= = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No. 39849 of 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2014 JUDGMENT
This Original Petition has been filed for quashing Ext.P11 demand notice issued from the office of the 1st respondent demanding Rs.22,034/- towards electricity charges and for other reliefs.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent raised certain bills against the petitioner in respect of the alleged additional load of electricity consumed. That was challenged before this Court in O.P.No.5850 of 2002. This Court disposed of that Original WPC39849of 2002 2 Petition as per Ext.P3 judgment issuing certain directions. But, such directions have not been complied with by the respondents. Thereafter also, the respondents raised additional bill on the very same allegations. That was also challenged before this Court in O.P.No.20944 of 2002. That Original Petition has been disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment issuing certain directions to the 2nd respondent and to the Chief Electrical Inspector. Ext.P6 judgment covers all the bills so raised up to that period. Therefore, no separate compliance with Ext.P3 judgment was required. Only Ext.P6 judgment was to be complied with. But, despite the filing of Ext.P7 appeal by the petitioner as directed in the judgment and the receipt of the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector, the 2nd respondent has not complied with the directions in Ext.P6 judgment. The report so given by the Chief Electrical Inspector to the 2nd respondent is in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, following that report, the 2nd respondent is duty bound to WPC39849of 2002 3 comply with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment in respect of the grievance raised by the petitioner in Ext.P7 appeal. But, without doing so, Ext.P11 bill has been raised against the petitioner without making any adjustment in favour of the petitioner as reported by the Chief Electrical Inspector. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for disposing of this Original Petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P7 appeal filed by the petitioner in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment and in the light of the report given by the Chief Electrical Inspector to the 2nd respondent within a time frame.
4. In the result, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 appeal submitted by the petitioner in the light of the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector as directed by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 2nd WPC39849of 2002 4 respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and Sri.N.N.Kunhabdulla, S/o. Abdul Rahiman, Orcha, P.O.Kottappuram, Kasaragod District, the owner of the building, before disposing of Ext.P7 as directed. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this Original Petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. After disposing of Ext.P7 appeal as directed, if any amount is found due to the petitioner which shall be paid to him within a period of two months thereafter. If any amount is found due from the petitioner which can be claimed by issuing a separate demand notice for that purpose. This Original Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE ks. WPC39849of 2002 5