Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12799
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
C BEENAKUMARI – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSEB ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 29147/2012
The court confirmed the legality of surcharge levies under the relevant statutes, permitting collection despite earlier civil disputes.
Headnote:
Payments - Demand for Surcharge - Relevant Statutes - Summary of Provisions and Court's Interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges a demand notice for surcharge on short assessment bills spanning several years, claiming the amounts unjustifiable and related disputes stemming from prior civil suits.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the petitioner is liable for surcharge payments as per statutory provisions, emphasizing that previous judicial decisions upheld the validity of the demands made by the Electricity Board.
Issues: Whether the surcharge demands are justified and whether the court can adjudicate on the correctness of the computations in the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that since the civil court's judgments upheld the demands, the surcharge levied by the Electricity Board is lawful.
Final Decision: The court upheld the surcharge demand but allowed the petitioner a month to seek a One Time Settlement.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 demand. It is evident that 'short assessment bills' were issued against the petitioner for the months of 5/2001 and 12/2001. The petitioner had challenged those bills by filing a suit as O.S. No.501/2001, before the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara. Subsequently she had filed appeal as A.S. No.46/2007 before the Additional District Court-II, Mavelikkara. It is evident that the petitioner has filed other civil suits also challenging various demands. It is submitted that a Second Appeal filed against the judgment in the Appeal Suit is pending before this court.
2. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7.
On dismissal of the suit and the appeal, demand was raised for payment of the amounts covered under the 'short assessment bills' and for current charges due for the months of 5/2001 and from 7/2003 to 12/2004, totalling to a sum of Rs.4,83,639/-. In Ext.P7, surcharge was also claimed for the period from 5/2001 to 11/2012 to the tune of Rs.9,59,352/-. According to the petitioner, the exorbitant amount of surcharge demanded is totally unjustifiable. It is also contended that for certain periods payment of monthly bills were not accepted by the authorities of the Board due to pendency of the civil suit and only after directions issued by the Executive Engineer as per Ext.P3, such amounts were accepted.
3. Dispute regarding correctness of the computations in the demand cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. Going by the relevant statute the petitioner is liable for payment of surcharge on delayed payment of amounts due to the Board. Since it is evident that challenges against the demands were discarded by virtue of judgments of the civil courts, this court cannot hold that the levy of surcharge is in any manner illegal.
4. However, standing counsel appearing for the respondents had pointed out that a scheme for 'One Time Settlement' to permitting settlement of long pending arrears, introduced by the Electricity Board, is in force till the end of December, 2012. If the petitioner approaches the competent authority for settlement of the arrears under the scheme, the same shall be considered. It is left open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority seeking settlement under the above same scheme. In such case the competent authority shall consider the same and shall take appropriate decision in accordance with terms of the Scheme.
5. For facilitating the petitioner to approach the competent authority seeking 'One Time Settlement', coercive steps of recovery initiated under Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today.
