The Assistant Executive Engineer vs M.M.Sulaiman
2024 Latest Caselaw 5607 Ker

Kerala High Court

The Assistant Executive Engineer vs M.M.Sulaiman on 16 February, 2024

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
     FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 12293 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:

    1     THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
          LIMITED, AYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

    2     THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
          ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
          LIMITED, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 691 534.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB
          SRI.N.SATHEESH
          SRI.N.RAPHY RAJ, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
          LIMITED



RESPONDENT/S:

          M.M.SULAIMAN
          WIN BROOK ESTATE PVT. LTD, PUTHUSSERI, NILAMEL, KOLLAM
          DISTRICT. 691 535.

          BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12293 OF 2015
                                            2

                                JUDGMENT

1. On the basis of the inspection conducted by the

department of Electricity, noticing unauthorized consumption of

electricity against the sanctioned load, two Mahazar were

prepared and provisional assessment order was served assessing

the liability to the extent of Rs.2,19,000/-. After receipt of the

objections, provisional assessment order was reiterated by passing

a final assessment order. The said order was assailed before the

permanent LoK Adalath.

2. Learned counsel for the Electricity department in

support of the contentions has relied upon the judgment in UP

Power Corporation Ltd. And Ors. v. Anis Ahmad (AIR 2013 SC 2766)

and Syriach Kurian v Union of India (2014 (3) KLT 557).

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

submits that the consumer was not properly advised to avail the

remedy. However an opportunity may be given to lead an evidence

by condoning the period spent in litigating the matter before the

incompetent authority.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the

paper book and of the view that the Permanent Lok Adalath, being WP(C) NO. 12293 OF 2015

a creature of the Legal Services Authorities, has no jurisdiction to

enter into dispute involving Indian Electricity Act, 2003. It is

settled law that where a statute provides availment of a particular

remedy that cannot be bypassed subject to the convenience and

choice of the litigant. The specific objection qua the

maintainability was taken before the Lok Adalath but the same has

been rejected in a most repugnant and cryptic manner . In this

view of the matter, the order of the Lok Adalath is set aside.

However, liberty is granted to the respondent consumer to take an

appropriate remedy by excluding the period spent in litigating

before the Permanent Lok Adalath to avail the remedy as

prescribed under Section 127.

sd/-

sab                                                 AMIT RAWAL
                                                       JUDGE
 WP(C) NO. 12293 OF 2015


                 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12293/2015

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

                      EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE

DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER/APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 29.12.11 IN THE APPEAL APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH IN OP 115/12 DATED 30.8.14.

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION IN WPC 10035/11.

EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC 10035/11.