Kerala State Electrictiy Board vs Sadasivan Nair on 22 August, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 772 of 2007(L)


1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICTIY BOARD,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                        Vs



1. SADASIVAN NAIR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :22/08/2007

 O R D E R
                          PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
               ..........................................................
                           R.P.NO.772 OF 2007 IN
                              O.P.No.534 OF 2001
               ...........................................................
                 DATED THIS THE 22nd AUGUST, 2007

                                    O R D E R

Heard Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned Standing Counsel for the

Kerala State Electricity Board and Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar, learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. Inviting my attention to Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity

Act 1910, Mr.Karunakaran would submit that the question of

reference to the Electrical Inspector will arise only in cases where a

dispute or difference arises between the parties as to whether the

meter is faulty. According to the learned Standing Counsel, no such

dispute has arisen in this case. Mr.Karunakaran would place reliance

on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Hydro-Electric Power

Supply Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 172, para.16] and

argue that it is an essential pre-requisite for referring the issue

whether a meter is faulty to the Electrical Inspector that a dispute has

arisen. Stressing on the word “where”, Mr.Karunakaran would draw

my attention to the definition to that word given in Black’s Law

Dictionary and submit that it means: ‘in the case of, in the event that’

etc. In short, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel was that

R.P..772 OF 2007 IN O.P.534 OF 2001

-2-

the question of reference can arise only in situations where dispute has

arisen between the parties.

3. Meeting the above arguments, my attention was drawn by

Mr.P.B.Suresh Kumar to the judgment of the Supreme Court in

M.P.E.B. v. Basantibai (AIR 1988 SC 71) which was in fact

considered by me in the judgment sought to be reviewed. Counsel

submitted that the enquiry need only be whether a dispute has

actually arisen and not whether anybody has formally raised such a

dispute.

4. Mr.Karunakaran would then focus on the second limb of

Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and submit that at

any rate the writ petitioner who is the aggrieved party has not made

an application for reference. Mr.Suresh Kumar would respond by

inviting my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in Nirmala Metal Industries v. K.S.E.B. (2006 (3) KLT 465)

wherein, at para.8, their Lordships have indicated that in situations

where there is a dispute as to whether the meter is faulty, if the Board

wants to raise a bill on the reason that the meter is defective, then it is

for the Board to take appropriate action in terms of Section 26 of the

Act.

R.P..772 OF 2007 IN O.P.534 OF 2001

-3-

5. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar,

I do not find any reason for reviewing my judgment, within the

contours of this Court’s jurisdiction for reviewing its own orders. The

Review Petition fails and the same will stand dismissed.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
tgl

R.P..772 OF 2007 IN O.P.534 OF 2001

-4-