IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35188 of 2003(L)
1. DR. S. SREENIVASA KAMATH,
... Petitioner
2. DR. S. SACHIDANANDA KAMATH,
Vs
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
For Respondent :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 35188 OF 2003 (L)
=====================
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P2 bill was issued to the petitioners deceased father,
who was the then consumer of Consumer No.6484, demanding
an amount of Rs.67,611, being the escaped assessment for the
period from 2/11/95 to 5/5/98. The amount was to be paid before
11/12/98. In O.P.No.233/99, this Court granted a stay of the
demand on condition that the petitioner remits 1/3rd of the
amount. It is stated that in compliance with the said order,
Rs.22,534/ was remitted by the petitioner on 6/1/99. The
aforesaid original petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment
relegating the parties to file appeal as provided under the
Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.
2. The appeal was filed and by Ext.P5 order dated
26/8/03, Ext.P2 was confirmed. Following Ext.P5, on 23/10/2003,
respondents issued Ext.P6 demanding an amount of Rs.66,711
along with Rs.81,120 towards surcharge. Petitioner submits that
as 1/3rd of the amount was already paid, the balance due under
Ext.P2 bill was paid by them on 10/11/2003. In this writ petition
WPC 35188/03
:2 :
filed challenging Ext.P6, the main dispute is regarding the
demand for surcharge. According to the petitioner such levy of
surcharges is impermissible in so far as residential supply is
concerned.
3. Standing counsel for the respondent Board submits
that what was demanded in Ext.P6 was wrongly shown as
surcharge, but actually it represents interest that is payable by a
defaulter at the rates as provided in the Conditions of Supply of
Electrical Energy. It is stated that at the relevant point of time,
interest was leviable at 24% and that it is presently 17%.
4. Admittedly the amount demanded in Ext.P2 was
payable on or before 11/12/98. Irrespective of the fact that there
were several litigations between the parties, fact remains that
1/3rd of the amount was paid by the petitioner on 6/1/99 and the
balance on 10/11/2003. If that be so, necessarily the petitioner is
liable to pay interest on the belated demands in view of the
provisions contained in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical
Energy.
5. Although it is the case of the Board that the petitioner
should pay interest at 24% itself, still having regard to the fact
WPC 35188/03
:3 :
that the matter was pending in this Court, I am inclined to direct
that the matter be given a quietus on the petitioner remitting
interest at 12%.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it
will be open to the respondents to demand interest from the
petitioner at 12% on Rs.67,611 for the period from 11/12/98 to
6/1/99 when the petitioner remitted 1/3rd of the amount. For the
balance 2/3rd of the amount, the respondents will be at liberty to
demand interest for the period from 6/1/99 till 10/11/2003. It will
be open to the 2nd respondent to issue a revised demand of
interest as indicated above and once such a demand is made, it
shall be the obligation of the petitioners to pay the amounts.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
