IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 34318 of 2001(I)
1. A.R.AJAYAGHOSH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DY.TAHSILDAR (RR)
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :19/09/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-------------------------
O.P. No. 34318 of 2001
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th day of September, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board.
2. Challenge is against recovery proceedings initiated for
recovery of arrears of electricity charges due from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the details
furnished in the revenue recovery notice and contended that
demand is only for the period 01/93 to 10/93, which is only fixed
charges with surcharge, which according to the petitioner was
paid through Ext.P2 receipt. However, learned standing counsel
for the KSEB has clarified that the amount paid by the petitioner
vide Ext.P2 receipt is fixed charges payable by him together with
interest for six months from the date of disconnection, which was
based on Ext.P1 award passed by the CDRF in a complaint failed
by the petitioner. Learned standing counsel for the KSEB stated
that the amount demanded under RR notice is the arrears of
electricity charges payable by the petitioner pursuant to APTS
O.P.No.34318/2001
-2-
inspection conducted in 1991 and the demand was Rs.18,260/-,
which with surcharge is the amount mentioned in the impugned
RR notice. The petitioner has no case that he has paid the
arrears of electricity bills amounting to Rs.18,260/- with
surcharge thereon because the said liability, which was also
under challenge before the CDRF, was not interfered by the CDRF
in their order. Probably, petitioner could have filed statutory
appeal against the demand as the CDRF fairly gave freedom to
the petitioner for the same. In the absence of any challenge
against the demand of arrear bills, it could be recovered with
surcharge. Even though, mistake may be committed by the
revenue recovery authorities in mentioning nature of liability in
the RR notice, the same is not going to affect the entitlement of
KSEB to recover the arrears from the petitioner. However,
having regard to the fact that petitioner is a small industrial unit,
which remained closed from 1993 onwards, I feel, reduction in
surcharge can be granted provided petitioner clears the arrears of
electricity bills i.e. Rs.18,260/- with 50% thereof towards
surcharge within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the balance
O.P.No.34318/2001
-3-
liability due under the impugned RR notice and the subsequent
accrual of interest / surcharge will stand waived, if petitioner
remits Rs.27,390/- on or before 15/11/2008. However, if
petitioner does not discharge the liability as above, entire liability
will be recovered with full surcharge, thereafter.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
jg