C.T.Lukose vs Kerala State Electricity Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 2081 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

  TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/29TH POUSHA, 1942

            RP.No.637 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 11802/2013

          AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11802/2013(A)
                    OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             C.T.LUKOSE, S/O THOMAS,
             AGED 67 YEARS,MANAGING DIRECTOR,
             JASS ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P)LTD.,
             SREEKANTAMANGALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

             BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MOHAMED HARIS

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
             PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      2      THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION,
             ETTUMANOOR,KOTTAYAM-686 631.

      3      THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE),
             KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      4      THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
             ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM-686 003.

      5      THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL),
             VIDHUTH BHAVAN, PATTOM,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

      6      THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
             KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
             T.M.R.DIVISION, PALLAM, KOTTAYAM-686 631.

           R1-R6 BY ADV. SRI.N.SATHEESH
     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ncd
 RP No.637/2020 in WPC.11802/2013
                                    :2 :




                               ORDER

~~~~~~

Dated this the 19th day of January, 2021

Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11802/2013 has filed this

review petition.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged Ext.P6

order imposing the penal bill amounting ₹24,31,290/-. The

said order was passed pursuant to the directions of this Court

in Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C) No.33200/2003 filed by the

petitioner.

3. In the judgment dated 12.12.2019 sought to be

reviewed by the petitioner, in paragraph 12, this Court

observed as follows:-

"12. Once this court has considered the matter and delivered Ext.P5 judgment arriving at categoric findings about the tampering of the meter, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the orders passed by the authorities on tampering of matter are illegal. The issue was considered by this Court. The issue was remitted back for the limited purpose of considering the question of enhancement of the penalty."

RP No.637/2020 in WPC.11802/2013

The contention of the petitioner is that the finding of this Court

that remitting back the case as per Ext.P5 was for the limited

purpose of considering the question of enhancement of

penalty, is wrong, and therefore there is an error apparent on

the face of the judgment.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the review

petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents.

5. Paragraph 7 of Ext.P5 judgment of this Court by

which the matter was remitted back reads as follows:-

"7. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exhibit P7 and P8. It is made clear that the petitioner will be liable for payment of the amount of penalty imposed originally through Exhibits P3 and P4. However, considering the long pending dispute of the matter I direct the respondent to waive imposition of interest or surcharge on the said amount. The matter is remitted to the 4th respondent appellate authority for fresh decision regarding the question with respect to enhancement of the quantum of penalty. Petitioner will be at liberty to raise all contentions in this regard including dispute regarding jurisdiction of the appellate authority. The appellate authority will decide the issue after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein as well as to other parties concerned. A fresh decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment." (Emphasis supplied) RP No.637/2020 in WPC.11802/2013

A reading of the said findings of this Court in Ext.P5 would

show that liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise all

contentions with regard to consider the question with respect

to enhancement of the quantum of penalty alone.

6. In view of the specific findings of this Court in the

earlier Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner cannot be permitted to

agitate other issues. At any rate, there is no error apparent on

the face of the judgment dated 12.12.2019 in W.P.(C)

No.11802/2013, warranting review of the judgment.

The review petition is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/19.01.2021