Downloads - Orders
Downloads
 Overview |
 Search Downloads |
 Submit file |
 Up |
| Category: Orders | ||
 Orders |
Files: 1327 | |
| Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman in pdf format |
||
Files:
 P/139/2015 - M/s Skyline Foundations & Structures (P) Ltd. Cochin 682011 
|
|
| The appellant is a builder & promoter of M/s Skyline Foundations & Structures (P) Ltd. and has applied for a power requirement of 400 kVA to a new residential project ‘SFS Branton Park' at Padamughal, Kakkanad under Electrical Section, Thrikkakkara, on 26-04-2012. The Licensee has demanded a sum of Rs. 9,44,000.00 computed @ Rs. 2,360/kVA as pro-rata transmission side development charges on per kVA basis from the appellant. The appellant approached the Hon'ble High court against the above demand by filing W.P. No. (C) 21344 of 2012. The Hon’ble High Court, vide impugned judgment dated 14-09-2012, directed KSEB to process the application based on the bonds and undertakings. It is also ordered that the connections will be given on specific condition that within 2 weeks from pronunciation of the judgment, additional cost will be paid if demand is sustained and on failure all the connections will be cut off. 17 consumers with the same issue filed Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the levy of transmission side development charges. The Hon'ble Court in its common judgment in WP(C) 18726/2011 and connected cases held that levy of transmission side development charges was illegal. Against the above judgment, Board filed a Writ Appeal No. 900/2013 and the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 30-06-2014 set aside the judgment in WP (C) 18726/2011 and connected cases. Accordingly the licensee demanded the transmission development charge for Rs. 9,44,000.00. In the meantime Hon'ble KSERC in a case regarding the levy of transmission development charges had issued final order in OP No. 22/2011 dated 22-01-2015, favouring the licensee. So the licensee again issued demand notice for an amount of Rs. 9,44,000.00. Against this the appellant approached Hon'ble High Court with Writ Petition (C) 8881/2015 and the Hon'ble Court directed the appellant to approach CGRF. Accordingly CGRF disposed the petition with a finding that the demand raised by the respondent is found in order. Against the above decision of CGRF, the appellant approached this Authority. As the cost estimated is not in accordance with the order dated 23-05-2011 in Petition No. TP 87/2011 the respondent is directed to revise the demand in accordance with the above order. The appeal petition is admitted and order of CGRF is modified. No order as to costs. |
| REVIEW PETITION NO.P/083/2014 - Sri C.A. Nazar, Cochin -682 001
|
|
| The review appellant Sri C.A. Nazar filed an appeal petition No. P/054/2014 challenging the order passed by the CGRF, Ernakulam against the short assessment bill dated 05-03-2013 for Rs. 28,841.00. The said short assessment bill was issued based on the alleged inspection conducted in the appellant’s premises by the APTS on 20-11-2012 and detected the wiring in the CT meter box in damaged condition and for which the meter was not recording actual consumption. After hearing the matter in details this Authority passed an order on 30-06-2015 by quashing the short assessment bill dated 05-03-2013 for Rs. 28,841.00. It is also directed the licensee to issue revised bill based on the average consumption for a previous period of 6 months starting from 10/2012 after deducting the amount already remitted. Against the above order the review appellant filed this review petition. The review appellant has not shown any error apparent on the face of records. The only reason stated is that the implementation of the earlier order resulted in excess demand which is not a reason for reviewing the earlier order. Hence the review petition is not maintainable and hence rejected. |
| REVIEW PETITION NO P/054/2014 - The Assistant Executive Engineer Charummodu Alappuzha District
|
|
| The review petitioner in this review petition is the respondent in appeal petition No. P/054/2014. The appellant in the appeal petition, Sri T.M. Varghese is a registered domestic consumer with consumer No. 914 under Electrical Section, Charummoodu. He had applied for shifting of 11 kV post from his premises on 24-06-2003 and remitted the work deposit amount of Rs. 7,591.00. Due to the indifference on the part of review petitioner, the review respondent approached CGRF on 07-04-2014. While the matter was pending before the Forum the review petitioner started the shifting work on 14-05-2014. But the Panchayath President of Chunakkara Grama Panchayath objected the above shifting work. According to the local body, the 11 kV post is situated in the Purambokku land. But the review petitioner stated that the shifting work is technically feasible and will not cross any obstruction or inconvenience to public or vehicular traffic. In the circumstances the review respondent took up the matter with Additional District Magistrate on 22-05-2014 for further instruction. The Additional District Magistrate issued orders to shift the post as proposed by KSEB. The CGRF dismissed the petition since the matter was within the jurisdiction of Additional District Magistrate and the review respondent filed an appeal against the order of CGRF. The appeal was posted for hearing by this Authority on 13-02-2015. Then the review respondent intimated that the local body moved against the Additional District Magistrate’s order by a Writ Petition (C) 32786/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court by its judgment dated 29-01-2015 upheld the order of Additional District Magistrate. Since the appeal in petition No. P/054/2014 has partly lost its relevance, this Authority had ordered to pay interest on the amount remitted by the review respondent under deposit work for shifting the 11 kV post on 24-06-2003 on account of delay occurred in executing the work. Against the order the review petitioner submitted this review petition stating that the reason for not having executed the work at that time was due to the objection raised by the local residents and the Panchayath authorities. Review petitioner has not pointed out anything which escaped the notice of this Authority while disposing the matter earlier, I hold the review petition is not maintainable and has rejected. |