{"id":207699,"date":"2010-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-12-01T18:10:55","modified_gmt":"2018-12-01T12:40:55","slug":"the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Kerala State Electricity … vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Kerala State Electricity … vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 623 of 2008()\n\n\n1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,\n3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. WILFRED SATHYRAJ, S\/O.SATHYRAJ,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :04\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n              K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.\n        ------------------------------------------------------\n                      W.A.No.623 of 2008\n           ----------------------------------------------\n         Dated, this the 4th day of November, 2010\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
K.M.Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n
            Appellants are the respondents in the writ petition.<\/p>\n
The respondent herein filed the writ petition out of which this<\/p>\n
Writ Appeal arises, seeking the following reliefs :-<\/p>\n
     “i.    Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate<\/p>\n
     writs orders or directions quashing Ext.P13.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     ii.    Issue    a   writ   of   mandamus       or   other<\/p>\n
     appropriate writs orders or directions commanding<\/p>\n
     the respondents to reconnect the power supply<\/p>\n
     under consumer No.2705 which has been assigned<\/p>\n
     with new No.10555 forthwith.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iii.   Issue    appropriate    directions   to   the 3rd<\/p>\n
     respondent to re-compute the fixed charge and<\/p>\n
     current charges so far collected and the actual<\/p>\n
     amount chargeable by him from the petitioner with<\/p>\n
     reference to the category of connection and actual<\/p>\n
     consumption and to refund the excess amounts so<\/p>\n
     far collected to the petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iv.    Issue appropriate writs orders or directions<\/p>\n
     commanding the respondents to dispose off<\/p>\n
     Ext.P4, Ext.P13 and Ext.P15 representation made<\/p>\n
     in respect of illegal disconnection and excessive<\/p>\n
     charging.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WA No.623\/2008                  -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2.   The case of the writ petitioner in brief is as<\/p>\n
follows :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            He was conducting a workshop for which the 2nd<\/p>\n
appellant sanctioned power connection in consumer No.2705<\/p>\n
with a connected power load of 7.76 kilo watts. In 1986, he<\/p>\n
made arrangements to start an automobile service station and<\/p>\n
he started it in 1989. Though the appellant had allotted a<\/p>\n
separate meter for the service station, the consumption in the<\/p>\n
Engineering Unit and the service station were clubbed without<\/p>\n
providing separate consumer number and accordingly has<\/p>\n
been issuing a single bill for each month. After few months,<\/p>\n
the appellant removed one meter and connected the entire<\/p>\n
load through the old meter No.2705 allotted to the<\/p>\n
Engineering Industry. Subsequently they issued a notice to<\/p>\n
disconnect the excess load of 9.24 kilo watts as if the<\/p>\n
petitioner connected the same to the old meter. Despite the<\/p>\n
disconnection notice, an additional bill dated 20.11.1999 was<\/p>\n
sent calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.12,842\/-.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Appellants estimated the units consumed for the service<\/p>\n
station at 420 units. The petitioner requested the details and<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                 -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
he filed a suit as O.S.No.792\/1999 before the Munsiff’s Court,<\/p>\n
Nedumangad for restraining the recovery of the disputed bill.<\/p>\n
From December, 1999 onwards, the respondents have been<\/p>\n
charging the entire consumption under LT VII category.<\/p>\n
Petitioner was served Ext.P2 additional bill. Petitioner filed<\/p>\n
writ petition for directing  the respondents to restore the<\/p>\n
connection and also to provide separate meters for both the<\/p>\n
connections.     As per Ext.P3 judgment, the respondents<\/p>\n
restored the power supply on receiving Rs.30,000\/- and still<\/p>\n
they did not provide any separate meter as directed by this<\/p>\n
Court.    Complying with the direction of this Court, the<\/p>\n
petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal.  In the year 2000, the fixed<\/p>\n
charge was at Rs.765\/- (Ext.P5 bill). Thereafter various bills<\/p>\n
are produced as Exts.P6, P7 and P8. Aggrieved by above, the<\/p>\n
petitioner made Ext.P9 representation.   He did not get full<\/p>\n
justice and he relies on Exts.P10 and P12 and he states that<\/p>\n
the amounts in the various bills are unreasonable and<\/p>\n
baseless. Petitioner made Ext.P14 representation followed by<\/p>\n
Ext.P15.\n<\/p>\n
            3.    A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                   -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent. In the counter it is inter alia stated as follows:-<\/p>\n
    ” It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
    running an automobile workshop and a vehicle service<\/p>\n
    station simultaneously.      As per the tariff orders<\/p>\n
    automobile workshop comes under LT IV tariff and<\/p>\n
    service station comes under LT VII A tariff.         The<\/p>\n
    workshop was started in the year 1974 under LT IV tariff<\/p>\n
    with consumer No.2705 with a connected load of 7.76<\/p>\n
    KW. The automobile service station was started near<\/p>\n
    the workshop by the petitioner in 1989 and at that time<\/p>\n
    he was consuming power for the service station also<\/p>\n
    from the above consumer number.        Subsequently the<\/p>\n
    service station was segregated from the above consumer<\/p>\n
    number and a new connection with consumer No.2705A<\/p>\n
    having a connected load 9.24 KW was assigned to the<\/p>\n
    service station from April 1995 onwards.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          ” Earlier the consumer was paying energy charges<\/p>\n
    for above two premises till April 1995 under LT IV tariff.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    But from May 1995 onwards the consumer No.2705A<\/p>\n
    come under LT VII A tariff. The provisional invoice card<\/p>\n
    system was introduced from 1995 at the rate of Rs.478<\/p>\n
    per month to the consumer No.2705. But the consumer<\/p>\n
    refused to pay the amount at the higher tariff and<\/p>\n
    consequently the supply to Consumer No.2705 A was<\/p>\n
    disconnected on 10.6.1998.         As on the date of<\/p>\n
    disconnection the reading on the meter was 6214 and<\/p>\n
    subsequently on inspection in the premises,           on<\/p>\n
    27.9.1999 it was noticed that the reading was changed<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                    -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
   to 8926 which clearly indicates that the machinery in the<\/p>\n
   service   station    were  run    by   the  petitioner  by<\/p>\n
   unauthorizedly reconnecting the disconnected supply.<\/p>\n
   Therefore the petitioner was assessed for illegal<\/p>\n
   abstraction of energy to consumer No.2705A from<\/p>\n
   consumer No.2705. An arrear notice dated 16.7.1998<\/p>\n
   for Rs.22080\/- was issued to the consumer. Challenging<\/p>\n
   that notice the petitioner filed OS 494 of 1998 before the<\/p>\n
   Munsiff Court, Nedumangad and that suit was dismissed<\/p>\n
   on 31.8.2000.         Subsequently the premises were<\/p>\n
   inspected by the Assistant Executive Engineer on<\/p>\n
   25.10.1999 and a mahazar was prepared. A true copy<\/p>\n
   of the said mahazar dated 25.10.1999 is produced<\/p>\n
   herewith marked as Exhibit R2 (a). In Exhibit R2(a) it is<\/p>\n
   clearly found that the petitioner was engaged in<\/p>\n
   unauthorizedly connecting the supply from consumer<\/p>\n
   No.2705 to 2705A and consumer No.2706. Consumer<\/p>\n
   No.2706 is the disconnected domestic connection of the<\/p>\n
   petitioner.   So petitioner was found to be a habitual<\/p>\n
   misuser of electricity.     Thereafter as per registered<\/p>\n
   notice dated 26.9.1999 he was directed to dismantle the<\/p>\n
   unauthorized load to consumer No.2705A. On receipt of<\/p>\n
   that notice, the petitioner filed O.S.No.792\/1999 before<\/p>\n
   the    Munsiff   court,  Nedumangad      challenging   that<\/p>\n
   demand.       The above suit was withdrawn by the<\/p>\n
   consumer on 7.12.2001. Misuse of energy from lower<\/p>\n
   tariff to higher tariff was billed at penal rate for higher<\/p>\n
   tariff as per rules.”\n<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                   -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
            4. It is further stated that during the pendency of<\/p>\n
the suit petitioner filed OP before this Court challenging Ext.P2<\/p>\n
demand and it was disposed of directing the Executive<\/p>\n
Engineer to consider the appeal to be filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
and to pass orders thereon.          Accordingly, the Executive<\/p>\n
Engineer issued Ext.R2(b) order.         It is found that the<\/p>\n
appellant\/writ petitioner is liable to pay current charges at the<\/p>\n
rate applicable to LT VIIA tariff and directed to recover the<\/p>\n
entire amount from the petitioner. The copy of the order was<\/p>\n
despatched to the petitioner as per No.25 at 15.11.2002. It<\/p>\n
appears that, the petitioner has not challenged the said order<\/p>\n
even after receipt of the same.\n<\/p>\n
            5.      Petitioner filed reply affidavit producing<\/p>\n
Exts.P16 to P18f. It is inter alia stated as follows: Through<\/p>\n
one meter the respondents were reading the consumption for<\/p>\n
lighting purpose and through the other meter they were<\/p>\n
reading the energy used for the service station.              No<\/p>\n
connection under No.2705A has been provided by way of<\/p>\n
segregation or otherwise. The officers under the respondents<\/p>\n
were ascertaining the consumption on reading both the meters<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                   -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
and the current charges were determined on calculating<\/p>\n
charge under LT IV in respect of one meter and under LT VII<\/p>\n
in respect of the power meter. Such a course continued for<\/p>\n
several years. The consumption under both the meters have<\/p>\n
been separately noted in those invoices. Ext.P16 is produced<\/p>\n
as demand notice showing collection of Rs.765\/- as fixed<\/p>\n
charges and collection charges of Rs.5 under LT VIIA for 144<\/p>\n
units. The entire consumption is charged under LT VIIA. The<\/p>\n
further bills are produced as Ext.P17 and P18 series.        He<\/p>\n
denies the allegation that after disconnection of supply to the<\/p>\n
service station he has been continuing with the service station<\/p>\n
by willfully connecting the service station load to the consumer<\/p>\n
No.2705 illegally. It is also contended that the appeal filed<\/p>\n
has not been disposed of and no communication to that effect<\/p>\n
has been issued by the Executive Engineer or by any other<\/p>\n
respondents. It is stated that if at all there is an order dated<\/p>\n
15.11.2002, that can only be a fabricated one.             LT IV<\/p>\n
connection with No.2705 is not sanctioned on 3.12.1987. The<\/p>\n
entire demand made under Exts.P2 and P13 are false and the<\/p>\n
amount of RS.30,000\/- is liable to be        refunded. When he<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                   -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
proposed to start an auto service station         he applied for<\/p>\n
additional power allocation for establishing service station.  It<\/p>\n
was sanctioned as per Ext.P1.       Subsequently, respondents<\/p>\n
installed a higher capacity meter for the motor connection on<\/p>\n
changing the old meter. He denies the allegation as false that<\/p>\n
on the basis of 1994 tariff revision order, the service station<\/p>\n
was classified under LT VIIA segregating the same from<\/p>\n
consumer No.2705 and numbered as 2705A with additional<\/p>\n
meter from May 1995.          He has not defaulted any bills.<\/p>\n
Respondents have never issued separate monthly bills for the<\/p>\n
service station.\n<\/p>\n
            6.    Learned Single Judge after referring to the<\/p>\n
facts finds as follows. The entire bills are raised at commercial<\/p>\n
tariff which is not justified because petitioner was admittedly<\/p>\n
running workshop which was his first business. And then the<\/p>\n
learned Judge proceeds to find that              order calls for<\/p>\n
modification because 1\/3rd of the demand is attributable to<\/p>\n
penal interest.    Moreover, it is reported that petitioner has<\/p>\n
closed business and the Board itself allowed the petitioner to<\/p>\n
continue service station for three years without raising any<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                  -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
bills or recovering any amount. Since the entire consumption<\/p>\n
was not under commercial tariff the learned Judge reduced<\/p>\n
the amount payable under the disputed bill to Rs.30,000\/-<\/p>\n
which has already been paid by the petitioner.         The writ<\/p>\n
petition was closed observing that if the petitioner is liable to<\/p>\n
pay any other amount under conditional orders, respondents<\/p>\n
are free to recover such amounts.     It is feeling aggrieved by<\/p>\n
the said decision, the appellants are before us.<\/p>\n
            7.    We heard Sri.C.K.Karunanakaran, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants and Sri.Abraham Mathew, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent.         Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants would contend that Rs.30,000\/- was paid only as a<\/p>\n
condition pursuant to the direction by the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
in the earlier order of litigation. The petitioner has filed an<\/p>\n
appeal against Ext.P2 and that culminated in Ext.R2(b). The<\/p>\n
said order passed by the appellate authority has not been<\/p>\n
challenged by the petitioner and that has become final. In<\/p>\n
terms of the said order,the appellant remains liable to pay the<\/p>\n
amount demanded under the original demand. The appellant<\/p>\n
having paid Rs.30,000\/- as directed by this Court, the<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                 -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
authority has given due credit to the amount of Rs.30,000\/-<\/p>\n
paid in the original demand of Rs.53518\/- in Ext.P2.<\/p>\n
Appellants have only demanded the balance amount and<\/p>\n
interest payable as per law.   The learned    counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants would further contend that inspection revealed that<\/p>\n
the petitioner was making use of the connection under<\/p>\n
No.2705 for the purpose of running service station for which<\/p>\n
Consumer No.2705A was sanctioned. He would submit that in<\/p>\n
such circumstances, particularly when the appellate order is<\/p>\n
not challenged the learned Single Judge ought not to have<\/p>\n
limited   recovery of the amount to Rs.30,000\/- which has<\/p>\n
already been paid.\n<\/p>\n
              8.    Per contra, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent\/petitioner would contend as follows: He would<\/p>\n
submit that as contended by him in the petition and in the<\/p>\n
reply affidavit though there is a direction to install separate<\/p>\n
meters there is no separate meter.          The current was<\/p>\n
measured through a common meter and only a single bill was<\/p>\n
being issued to the respondent. He would further contend<\/p>\n
that actually Ext.R2(b) order cannot be relied on.          He<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                  -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
reiterates his contentions. He also submitted that as noted<\/p>\n
by the learned Single Judge the entire consumption is built<\/p>\n
under Chapter VIIA (commercial) even though good part of it<\/p>\n
would have been consumed for running the workshop which is<\/p>\n
to be charged under LT IV category. Learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
has taken an equitable decision and no interference is called<\/p>\n
for. He would reiterate the facts.\n<\/p>\n
           9.    The writ petitioner\/respondent was running a<\/p>\n
workshop under consumer No.2705 from the year 1974.<\/p>\n
Some time in the late 1980s he also decided to start a service<\/p>\n
station. After allocation he started the service station. The<\/p>\n
consumer No. was 2705A. He had also domestic consumer<\/p>\n
No.2706. Till 1995 it would appear both the work shop and<\/p>\n
service station were categories exigible to the same tariff.<\/p>\n
From 1995 the service stations were categorised under<\/p>\n
commercial category and      came under LT VIIA.      In other<\/p>\n
words, the tariff became higher for the service stations in<\/p>\n
comparison to the workshop. It would appear that, demands<\/p>\n
for payment of bills for the service station was sent on the<\/p>\n
basis of new tariff order of 1994.   There was refusal to pay.<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                  -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
Consequently, connection of service station was disconnected.<\/p>\n
Of course, the writ petitioner would contend that it was not<\/p>\n
disconnected.     But, we see no      reason why we should<\/p>\n
disbelieve   the   version   of the  appellant   that   it  was<\/p>\n
disconnected. Subsequently there was an inspection. In the<\/p>\n
course of inspection it was found that the service station being<\/p>\n
run on the basis of power being taken from consumer No.2705<\/p>\n
namely, the workshop.      Of course, the case of the appellant<\/p>\n
is that it is also used for the domestic connection. This is a<\/p>\n
matter where the authorities have prepared a mahazar and it<\/p>\n
is on the basis of the mahazar they have decided to demand<\/p>\n
the amount demanded in Ext.P2. Petitioner filed civil suit and<\/p>\n
still later he filed a writ petition.  In the writ petition on<\/p>\n
condition of deposit of Rs.30,000\/- he was relegated to file<\/p>\n
statutory appeal. Reconnection was ordered on condition that<\/p>\n
he remitted Rs.30,000\/- which undoubtedly he paid. But, this<\/p>\n
is only a conditional order to hold good till the appeal was<\/p>\n
finally disposed of.         The appeal, according to the<\/p>\n
appellant came to be disposed of vide Ext.R2(b). The order is<\/p>\n
also communicated to him. It may be true that the petitioner<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                   -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
has a case that it was a fabricated document not<\/p>\n
communicated to him. But the fact of the matter is that even<\/p>\n
after the appellate order is produced along with the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit, petitioner did not choose to amend the writ petition<\/p>\n
impugning the order.        We see no reason why without<\/p>\n
impugning the order which is admittedly served on him how it<\/p>\n
will still open to the petitioner to impugn the correctness or<\/p>\n
validity of the order. This must be    deemed to be served on<\/p>\n
him at the time when the counter affidavit is filed. In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, we must take it that Ext.P2 stands affirmed by<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(b). The present demand is essentially for the amount<\/p>\n
claimed by virtue of Ext.P2 being affirmed by the appellate<\/p>\n
authority in Ext.R2(b). Since the original order will merge in<\/p>\n
the appellate order and the appellate order is not challenged<\/p>\n
we do not think that it will be open to the appellant to raise a<\/p>\n
contention that Ext.R2(b) cannot be acted upon.     A statutory<\/p>\n
authority has gone into the question       and has found the<\/p>\n
contention of the petitioner as not tenable.       There is an<\/p>\n
inspection. Mahazar was prepared. Statutory authorities have<\/p>\n
detected the use of electricity from one connection          for<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                  -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
running commercial establishment (service station) and<\/p>\n
accordingly the demands have been raised.              In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, we do not think that the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
was justified in limiting the amount to be paid to Rs.30,000\/-<\/p>\n
which was only a conditional payment ordered by this Court<\/p>\n
at the time when the writ petitioner was relegated to prefer<\/p>\n
statutory appeal and subject to orders to be passed in the<\/p>\n
statutory appeal.     Once a statutory appeal culminated in<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(b) order, we are not in a position to understand how<\/p>\n
the petitioner can absolve himself from the liability to honour<\/p>\n
the order passed against in the statutory appeal filed.<\/p>\n
However, we must also refer certain features in this case.<\/p>\n
Petitioner as already noticed is running a workshop. He was<\/p>\n
also apparently running a service station. There was misuse.<\/p>\n
We notice in the order passed by the appellate authority there<\/p>\n
is no reference to the appellant\/petitioner being heard in the<\/p>\n
matter.    In such circumstances, while we are inclined to<\/p>\n
accept the case of the appellants that the petitioner must<\/p>\n
indeed be called upon to pay Rs.23,528\/-, in keeping with the<\/p>\n
stand taken by the apex Court which is brought to our notice<\/p>\n
WA No.623\/2008                    -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
by the learned counsel in the matter of interest as also by this<\/p>\n
Court, we feel that petitioner need not be mulcted with liability<\/p>\n
to pay interest at full statutory fixed rate of 24%.<\/p>\n
            10.      We allow the appeal and set aside the<\/p>\n
judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct that the writ<\/p>\n
petitioner will be liable to pay a sum of Rs.23,528\/- and<\/p>\n
interest at 18% from 7.10.2001 till 18.4.2005 with further<\/p>\n
interest at 12% from 19.4.2005 till the date of payment.<\/p>\n
Petitioner will be liable to pay a sum of Rs.23,528 +Rs.14,952<\/p>\n
(being interest at 18% from 7.10.2001 to 18.4.2005) with<\/p>\n
further interest at 12% on Rs.23,528\/- from 19.4.2005 till the<\/p>\n
date of payment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            (K.M.JOSEPH)
\n                                                JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (M.C.HARI RANI)
\n                                                JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
jvt\/MS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Kerala State Electricity … vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 623 of 2008() 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, … Petitioner 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Vs 1. WILFRED SATHYRAJ, S\/O.SATHYRAJ, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Kerala State Electricity ... vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Kerala State Electricity ... vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-01T12:40:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Kerala State Electricity … vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-01T12:40:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2926,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010\",\"name\":\"The Kerala State Electricity ... vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-01T12:40:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Kerala State Electricity … vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Kerala State Electricity ... vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Kerala State Electricity ... vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-01T12:40:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Kerala State Electricity … vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-01T12:40:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010"},"wordCount":2926,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010","name":"The Kerala State Electricity ... vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-01T12:40:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kerala-state-electricity-vs-wilfred-sathyraj-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Kerala State Electricity … vs Wilfred Sathyraj on 4 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207699","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=207699"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207699\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}