High Court Kerala High Court

B.Ravindran Nair vs The Assistant Secretary on 16 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
B.Ravindran Nair vs The Assistant Secretary on 16 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1384 of 2009()


1. B.RAVINDRAN NAIR, PLOT NO.III,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :16/07/2009

 O R D E R
             S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J.
                  ------------------------------------------
                          W.A.No.1384 of 2009
                  ------------------------------------------
                Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph, J.

Writ petitioner is the appellant. The dispute pertains to

the levy of electricity charges. The learned Single Judge relegated

the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. The main contention

is that the writ petition having been pending before this Court for

the last six years, it may not be proper for this Court to again

relegate the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

2. When the writ appeal came up for admission, we

directed the parties to be present before us. We have gone through

the records also. We find that in the case of the petitioner there is a

marked difference in the consumption of electricity starting from

March, 1994 onwards upto September, 1996. We also find from

the records that there has been a meter change. It is not disputed

W.A.No.1384 of 2009

– 2 –

that the main dispute is on the billing for the period from March,

1994 to September, 1996. We find that the records are pretty old

and it is in the interest of the Corporation also that the dispute is

given a quietus once for all. Having regard to the entire facts and

circumstances of the case, we find that the interests of the parties

and the interest of justice would be served if the quietus is given in

the following manner.

3. The disputed period takes in 31 months from March,

1994 to September, 1996. The Corporation may rework the bills in

respect of the said period by taking the average of either 31 months

prior to March, 1994 or 31 months after September, 1996. We

make it clear that it will be open to the Corporation to take the more

advantageous of the two options. This exercise shall be done by the

Corporation within a period of two weeks from today. A fresh

demand notice shall be issued to the appellant/petitioner on the

basis of such recalculation. The amounts already remitted pursuant

to the interim orders of this Court shall be duly credited. For

W.A.No.1384 of 2009

– 3 –

the balance, the appellant/petitioner shall be liable to pay interest at

the rate of 18% with effect from September, 1996. The amount

reworked as above shall be paid within six weeks from the date of

receipt of the notice from the Corporation. We make it clear that

this is in full and final settlement of all the disputes pertaining to the

period upto 31.12.2000.

Writ appeal is disposed of as above.

S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice

Kurian Joseph,
Judge
vns