ABDUL NAZER Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition was preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 18-3-2005 rejecting the petitioner's objection to the demand for energy charges for the period 1998-99 contending that the same is hit by Section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

(2.) Petitioner was the Managing Partner of M/s. Soniya Enterprises, Chandiroor which was a small scale industrial unit engaged in the business of manufacturing of ice. Firm was a consumer of electricity having consumer No. 5246. Petitioner submits that the petitioner had sustained heavy loss in the business and accordingly he was constrained to wind up the operations of the unit during the year 1998 and also could not remit the electricity dues. Electricity supply was disconnected on 10-1-1999 due to non-payment of electricity charges and equipment were dismantled on 27-9-2001. Petitioner was served with demand notice dated 16-5-2002 directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 10,38,249/- on or before 17-6-2002, failing which it was ordered, appropriate recovery proceedings would be initialed against him. Petitioner had filed objection to the said notice and later approached this Court and filed OP.Nos. 3428 of 1998 and 18369 of 1994. Later he has also filed another Writ Petition No. 24317 of 2004 contending that the demand was hit by Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Various other contentions were also raised. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 18th January, 2005 directing the Board to consider his appeal petition dated 7-8-2004. Later Board issued Ext.P7 order dated 18-3-2005. Contention that the demand was hit by Section 56(2) was rejected. However, Board has given instructions to the Executive Engineer to withdraw the disputed demands and issue fresh bills limiting the claim for a period of six months prior to the dismantling of the service. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order rejecting his contention that demand was hit by Section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. K.K.M. Sheriff submitted Board has no legal right to collect any amount beyond two years from the date of coming into force of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Counsel referred to Section 185(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and contended that the notice should be deemed to have been issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 185 of the Act and hence Section 56(2) would squarely apply. Reference was also made to Clause 88 of the Electricity Supply Code. Counsel further submitted, Board has no legal right to demand exorbitant interest for belated demand. Counsel submitted demand of 24% interest is confiscatory. Counsel further submitted that he has already deposited an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and therefore there is no justification in recovering collection charges since amount was paid voluntarily and not collected through revenue recovery proceedings.