IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 31350 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SACHU.T.RUSSAK, SIGNPOST MEDIA, 33/605, DEVELOPMENT PLOT NO.1OO, SOUTH KALAMASSERY BY ADV. SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION (CENTRAL), ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, DISTRIBUTION (CENTRAL), ERNAKULAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.30079/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31350/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 27/02/2007 EXECUTED BY PETITIOENR & ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY. P2 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 15/07/2008 ISSUED BY R3. P3 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 24/08/2005 ISSUED BY KSEB. P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15/05/2007 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT. P5 : COPY OF INFORMATION THROUGH LETTER DATED 05/08/2008 ISSUED BY KSEB TO PETITIONER. P6 : COPY OF VARIOUS QUOTATIONS IN RESPECT OF SODIUM VAPOUR LAMPS. P7 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 07/09/2005 PASSED BY KSEB. P8 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 10/09/2008 PASSED BY KSEB. P9 : COPY OF WORK REPRESENTATION DATED 18/08/2008 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO ASST.ENGINEER, KSEB ANGAMALI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a) : COPY OF BOARD ORDER NO.B.O.(FB) NO.2650/2005 (PLG.COM.4601/05) DATED 07/09/2005 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, K.S.E.BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.31350 & 30079 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T WP(C) No.31350/2008 The prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P3, and to direct the respondents not to levy supervision charges from the petitioner on the basis of Exts.P3 and P7. 2. The petitioner submits that Ext.P1 is an agreement that he has entered into with the Angamaly Municipality for installing Sodium Vapour Lamps on the central median of the NH-47, passing through the M.C.Road Junction of Angamaly town. Various clauses of Ext.P1 show that it was the responsibility of the petitioner to procure the materials, install the Sodium Vapour Lamps and also to maintain the same. The responsibility of the Municipality is confined payment of energy charges. Apparently, the benefit derived by the petitioner is that he is given freedom to install the display advertisement boards on the lamp posts, and thus to earn revenue. WP(C) Nos.31350 & 30079/2008 -2- 3. The petitioner submits that in pursuance to Ext.P1, administrative sanction was accorded by the Electricity Board for installation of the Sodium Vapour Lamps, which inter alia provided for levy of supervision charges for installing the Sodium Vapour Lamps at the rate of Rs.445/-. According to the petitioner, the said levy of supervision charges is based on Exts.P3 and P7 orders issued by the Board, and is at the rate of 10% of the sum total of cost of materials, centage charges, transportation charges and labour charges. The petitioner contends that the levy of supervision charges as contemplated in Exts.P3 & P7 is applicable only in a situation, where the materials are procured by the Board and installation is done by labour employed by the Board, unlike in his case, where the entire work in relation to the installation of the Sodium Vapour Lamps is executed by him without any involvement of the Board. It is therefore contended that the levy of supervision charges is illegal. 4. It is also his case that the cost of materials adopted by the Board, on the basis of which supervision charges is calculated and levied, is too exorbitant and unrelated to the actual cost of WP(C) Nos.31350 & 30079/2008 -3- materials procured by the petitioner. The petitioner has referred to Ext.P6 series of invoices to show that the cost incurred by him is much less than what is adopted by the Board to quantify the supervision charges. 5. Yet another grievance of the petitioner is that there is no uniformity in the levy of supervision charges and referring to Ext.P5 series of documents, the petitioner contends that the supervision charges levied by the Board at different places are at different rates. In view of all the above reasons, complaining against the demand for supervision charges as per Ext.P2, the petitioner represented to the Board by Ext.P4, which was considered and rejected by Ext.P8. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Board. According to them, it is based on Exts.P3 & P7 orders, that supervision charges are being levied. It is stated that supervision charges is arrived at 10% of the total cost of materials including centage charges, transportation charges and labour charges. In so far as the alleged variation in the supervision charges is concerned, it is stated that the variation is due to the variation in the cost involved. In Ext.P8, WP(C) Nos.31350 & 30079/2008 -4- the contention of the petitioner, that they are not utilising the services of the men and materials of the Board during the course of the work or subsequently, also has been dealt with and has been rejected. It is stated that it is incumbent upon the Board to supervise the work for ensuring that adequate standards are maintained, and that the Officers of the Board are deployed for monitoring the installations. It is also stated that even at the operational level, there is involvement of the officers of the Board to justify supervision charges. 7. On the materials produced, I am not persuaded to think that the story canvassed by the petitioner that the installation of the Sodium Vapour Lamps is executed by them to the exclusion of the Officers of the Board. Admittedly, the work in question is connected with installation of Board, and for the installation of which supervision of the Officers of the Board is essential. If that be so, in view of the involvement of the Officers of the Board, it cannot be said that the Board is not justified in levying supervision charges. Similarly, the allegation regarding the variation in supervision charges has also been satisfactorily explained in the counter WP(C) Nos.31350 & 30079/2008 -5- affidavit. 8. However, the fact remains that, it is the case of the petitioner that even if supervision charges are to be levied, that should be related to the expenses incurred by the petitioner, and should not be based on the theoretical expenses quantified by the Board adopting their cost as the basis. 9. As already stated, referring to Ext.P6 series of invoices, the petitioner contends that the cost incurred by him is much less than what is allegedly incurred by the Board. Although this issue is seen to have been raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4 representation resulting in Ext.P8 order, this contention of the petitioner has not been considered in Ext.P8. Therefore, I am inclined to think that this contention of the petitioner should have addressed by the 2nd respondent while passing orders. Since he has not done so, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 2nd respondent shall reconsider Ext.P4 duly adverted to the contention of the petitioner that the supervision charges should be related to the actual cost incurred by him for the installation and maintenance of the Sodium Vapour Lamps in Angamaly Municipality area in pursuance to Ext.P1 WP(C) Nos.31350 & 30079/2008 -6- agreement. 10. In order to enable the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter, I quash Ext.P8 and direct that the matter shall be re- examined in the manner as directed above, with notice to the petitioner, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. WP(C) No.30079/2008 11. The issue raised in this writ petition is similar to what is raised and considered in the judgment in WP(C) No.31350/2008. In view of the above, this writ petition is also disposed of quashing Ext.P10 order, and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P4, in the manner as directed above. 12. Needless to say that depending on the examination as above, if any remittance made by the petitioner is in excess of what is actually due, necessarily, orders shall be passed refunding such excess payments. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg