IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 36874 of 2002(M) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.N.MOTHILAL, S/O. NARAYANAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, CHOLAKKOTTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.K.N.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR MUNCIPAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.MR.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION MR.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.62314/2002 IN OP. NO.36874/2002 DISMISSED 02.06.2009 SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 16.9.02 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 30.11.02 IN OP. NO.27959/02 HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P3:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER DT. 10.10.02 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE CUM-STATEMENT DT. 19.11.02 NO.6866/02 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE BILL DT. 2.12.02 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- O.P. No.36874 of 2002 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T In this original petition, the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P4. 2. Briefly, stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of a restaurant by name 'Ming Palace'. He is availing of the energy supplied by the respondent, a licencee under the Electricity Act. The consumer number is 8554-B. It is stated that on 16/09/2002, the petitioner was issued Ext.P1 demanding payment of Rs.5,14,669/- towards the dues allegedly payable for the period up to March, 2001. Ext.P1 was challenged before this Court in OP No.27959/2002. That Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing that Ext.P1 be treated as a notice and giving liberty to the petitioner to file his objections. In the judgment, the respondent was also directed to permit the petitioner to verify the account and to consider the matter in the light of the objection that is to be filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to pay 1/3rd of the amount and it is stated that such O.P. No.36874/2002 -2- remittance has been made. 3. Accordingly, Ext.P3 objection was filed, and finally Ext.P4 order has been issued confirming the demand. Along with Ext.P4, a statement of the dues also has been given, which shows that the amount demanded is for the period from 1992-93 to 2000-01. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 as one made without any basis. It is also stated that in pursuance to Ext.P2, the respondent was obliged to allow him to verify the accounts, and that was such verification not allowed. According to the petitioner, in view of the provisions contained in Section 539 of the Municipalities Act, no dues can be covered after the period of three years and that for this reason itself, the demand calls for interference. 4. The main contention that is raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent is that periodically they were issuing invoices to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was not settling their bills in full, but was making only part payments. It is stated that such part payments were accepted and that what is demanded in Ext.P4 is essentially the balance amount, that is due. 5. As far as the theory of part payment is concerned, apart O.P. No.36874/2002 -3- from the fact that the respondent has failed to submit any document in support of this contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner denies this allegation. He also refers to me Clause 32F of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, which was being adopted and followed by the respondent, which prohibits such part payments and provides that such part payments will not be accepted. In the light of Clause 32F referred to above, and in the absence of any document in support of the claim of the respondent, I cannot accept the contention in the counter affidavit. Irrespective of this, it has to be accepted that in terms of Section 539 of the Municipalities Act, no dues can be recovered after a period of three years. Evidently, Ext.P4 discloses that the demand is for the period from 1992-93 to 2000-01, and the first time demand made was by Ext.P1 dated 16/09/2002. Therefore, the three year period has to be counted from 16/09/2002. So counted, except the dues demanded for the immediately preceding three years, rest of the period in relation to which amount has been demanded has become time barred when Ext.P1 was served on the petitioner. If that be so, that portion of the amount claimed in Exts.P1 & P4 cannot be O.P. No.36874/2002 -4- realised. Therefore, on that basis, Exts.P1 & P4 deserve interference. 6. Accordingly, I direct the respondent to revise Exts.P1 and P4 excluding the portion that has become time barred as on 16/09/2002, when Ext.P1 was issued. It is directed that towards the liability arising out of such requantification, 1/3rd of the amount remitted by the petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P2 will be appropriated and if there is any balance amount to be paid, the petitioner shall pay the same. On the other hand, if the amount paid is in excess of the amount due, the same will be adjusted in the petitioner's future bills. The original petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg