IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4296 of 2010(J)
1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB,
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :10/02/1910
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No. 4296 of 2010-J
----------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 issued by the second
respondent insisting the petitioner to remit 50% of the liability, so as
to entertain the statutory appeal preferred under Section 127(2) of
the Electricity Act 2003.
2. The petitioner has got a specific contention that the
assessment made by the concerned authority is not in conformity
with the statutory prescription and further that the order passed by
the said authority pertains to a period also prior to 15.6.2007,
which however could not have been included for the obvious reason
that the amendment of the statute ie, to Section 126 of the
Electricity Act 2003 was brought into force only from 15.6.2007. It
is for this reason that the petitioner has challenged the said
proceedings, also seeking to declare (vide prayer No.3) that the
penal provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 as amended on
15.6.2007 cannot have any retrospective operation and cannot
W.P(C) No. 4296 of 2010-J 2
apply for the period prior to 15.6.2007; simultaneously seeking to
declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount claimed in
Exts.P1 and P2.
3. Head the learned standing counsel as well.
4. Admitted facts and figures as put forth from the part of
the petitioner show that the instruction to remit 50% of the disputed
amount for entertaining the Appeal, as evidenced by Ext.P5, is in
tune with the statutory requirement as contemplated under Section
127(2). The case of the petitioner is that the penal provisions of the
Electricity Act 2003 as amended on 15.6.2007 cannot have any
retrospective operation and cannot apply for the period prior to
15.6.2007. There is no case as against sub Section 2 of Section
127, whereby it is stipulated that 50% of the disputed amount has to
satisfied as a pre-condition to entertain the Appeal and the
statutory provision imposing such condition is also not under
challenge.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court does
not find any sustainable reason to intercept Ext.P5 or the impugned
order passed by the assessing authority. More so, when the matter
has already been taken up by filing Ext.P4 appeal. If the petitioner
W.P(C) No. 4296 of 2010-J 3
is so advised, they may satisfy the due amount as ordered in Ext.P5,
for entertaining the appeal. Since the time stipulated is already
over, it is hereby extended and on satisfying the said requirement
within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, Ext.P4 appeal shall be treated as proper and it shall be
considered and finalised in accordance with law, of course after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate within two months thereafter. It is made
clear that this Court has not mentioned anything on merits, which is
left open.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab
W.P(C) No. 4296 of 2010-J 4