Seethunath vs K.S.E.B.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 15, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1488778

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1488778
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Decided On: Nov 15, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/3041/2006

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Seethunath

Respondent

K.S.E.B.

Excerpt

.....counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for kseb.4. when this writ petition came up for consideration on 01.02.2006, this court passed the following order: “notice. there will be interim stay as prayed for, for a period of five months, on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of rs.30,000/- within a period of three weeks.”5. the interim order was extended until further orderson 11.08.2006. ext.p1 is a bill issued by kseb without a provisional bill. the petitioner approached the 2 nd respondent. the 2nd respondent passed ext.p4 order and issued ext.p5 modified short assessment bill. according to the petitioner, ext.p4 order is passed without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner. the counsel for the petitioner submitted that if an opportunity is given, he will be able to substantiate the same before the 2nd respondent.6. this writ petition is filed in the year 2006 and thesame is pending before this court for the last 16 years. since the petitioner has got a grievance that proper opportunity is not given, i think exts.p4 and p5 can be set aside and there can be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter. therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:1. exts.p4 and p5 are set aside.2. the 2nd respondent is directed toreconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. sd/- p.v.kunhikrishnan jv judge appendix of wp(c) 3041/2006 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 copy of the bill for rs.2,10,315/- dated 16.5.2003 issued from kseboard, mundoor exhibit p2 copy of the mahazar issued by the apts dt.06.05.2003 exhibit p3 copy of the appeal filed by teh petitioner dt.26.5.2003 exhibit p4 copy of the order passed by the 2nd respondnet in appeal dt. 02.12.2005 exhibit p5 copy of the revice bill issued by the 3rd respondent dated 20.1.2006

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 3041 OF 2006 PETITIONER: T.R.SETHURAMAN THATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,, KOZHUKULLY, THRISSUR. BY ADV SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER A.P.T.S. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,, PALAKKAD. 3 ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUNDOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAPHY RAJ, SC, KSEB SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH, SC(KSEB) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3041 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November, 2022

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers: i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents calling for the records leading to Ext.P4 and P5 and quash the same. ii. Grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (SIC)

2. Petitioner challenge Exts.P4 and P5 issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB).

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 01.02.2006, this Court passed the following order: “Notice. There will be interim stay as prayed for, for a period of five months, on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.30,000/- within a period of three weeks.”

5. The interim order was extended until further orders

on 11.08.2006. Ext.P1 is a bill issued by KSEB without a provisional bill. The petitioner approached the 2 nd respondent. The 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 order and issued Ext.P5 modified short assessment bill. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 order is passed without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that if an opportunity is given, he will be able to substantiate the same before the 2nd respondent.

6. This writ petition is filed in the year 2006 and the

same is pending before this Court for the last 16 years. Since the petitioner has got a grievance that proper opportunity is not given, I think Exts.P4 and P5 can be set aside and there can be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Exts.P4 and P5 are set aside.

2. The 2nd respondent is directed to

reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JV JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3041/2006 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE BILL FOR RS.2,10,315/- DATED 16.5.2003 ISSUED FROM KSEBOARD, MUNDOOR EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE MAHAZAR ISSUED BY THE APTS DT.06.05.2003 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY TEH PETITIONER DT.26.5.2003 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDNET IN APPEAL DT. 02.12.2005 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REVICE BILL ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.1.2006

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Seethunath vs K.S.E.B. Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan