YMCA Ernakulam V. The Assistant Engineer, KSEB Electrical Circle, Palarivattom, Kochi and Kerala State Electricity Board

WP(C)/28332/2013

AI Insights

The case involves YMCA Ernakulam, which operates a hostel, contesting a short assessment bill and a change in tariff classification by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). Initially, the hostel was charged under LT VI (B) tariff, but after the construction of an additional building, KSEB reclassified the tariff to LT VIIA, effective from July 2012, leading to a short assessment bill. The petitioner argued that the hostel should remain under LT VI (B) and contested the retrospective application of the new tariff. The court found that these issues were technical and more suited for the CGRF under the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005, rather than being resolved in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799107 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JAICE JACOB
• Assessee Lawyers: ABRAHAM VAKKANAL; PAUL VAKKANAL; DIJO SEBASTIAN; VINEETHA THOMAS
• Keywords: Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum; Short assessment bill; Tariff change; LT VI (B); LT VIIA
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/6TH ASHADHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 28332 of 2013 (N) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- YMCA ERNAKULAM, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN-682035, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SHRI. J.OOMMEN. BY SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS.SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN SMT.VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1.THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, PIN-682025. *ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695004. ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.11.2013 IN IA.NO.15621/2013. ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/ WP(C).No. 28332 of 2013 (N) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES DATED 01-10-1947. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. F.NO.MISC/EXPT/98-99/CIT/CHN ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER DATED 06-10-1998. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.566760 DATED 14-06-2012. EXHIBIT P3(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 20-06-2012. EXHIBIT P3(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DATED 12-06-2012. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO. 580056 DATED 05-07-2012. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 11-07-2012. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.655961 WITH PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 05-12-2012. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT 11-12-2012. EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.716748 WITH PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 05-04-2013. EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 12-04-2013. EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.807569 WITH PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 06-09-2013. EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 19-09-2013. EXHIBIT P12- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.816704.WITH PAYMENT DATED 5.10.2013. EXHIBIT P13- TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT ASSESSMENT BILL NO. ESPVTM/RAO/2013-14/245/15-10-2013 DATED 15-10-2013. --2-- --2-- WP(C).No. 28332 of 2013 (N) -------------------------- EXHIBIT P14- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.824801 DATED 05-11-2013. EXHIBIT P15- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13-11-2013. EXHIBIT P16- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT 2005 DATED 13.11.2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/ A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. ============= W.P. (C) No.28332 of 2013 =================== Dated this, the 27th day of June, 2016 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court being faced with short assessment bill in respect of a hostel which is run by the petitioner. 2. The facts as disclosed in the writ petition would show that the petitioner's hostel was given power supply under LT VI (B). Later, the petitioner has constructed an additional building for which power supply was requested. At the time, the Board officials had included the petitioner's hostel as well as the additional building under LT VIIA tariff. The short assessment bill was also issued from July 2012 onwards. According to the petitioner, being a hostel, it is liable to be charged only under LT VI(B). That apart, the Board should not have issued bills with retrospective effect from 2012. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents inter alia stating that the tariff of Consumer No.3717-9 was changed from LT VIB to VIIA on 23/6/2012 on account of the combination of W.P(C) No.28332/13 -:2:- different purposes in electricity usage in the same premises which includes restaurant as well. It is stated that as per the field information, co-existence of activities were prevalent since 2007. They also narrated various factors by which they have come to such a conclusion. 4. Having regard to the controversy involved in the matter, I am of the view that these are not issues which this Court should decide in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005, provides for sufficient alternate remedy for the petitioner to prefer a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF). In so far as contentions urged are highly technical in nature, it is for the competent authority under Regulations 2005 to decide such issues. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under (i) That the petitioner is granted four weeks' time to prefer complaint before the CGRF challenging the short assessment bill as well as the change of tariff. W.P(C) No.28332/13 -:3:- (ii) If the complaint is filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid four weeks, the demand made in terms of Ext.P13 short assessment bill shall be kept in abeyance until disposal of the matter pending before the CGRF. (iii) However, the petitioner shall pay all the current bills which are being issued by the Board from time to time. (iv) All contentions urged by the petitioner are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Rp27/06/2016 //True Copy// P.S to Judge "