AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner, Mariyapuram grama panchayat, has approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondents for realizing the due to the Board.
The facts of the case are that the 3rd Respondent issued Ext.P1 arrear bill requiring the Petitioner to remit an amount of Rs. 34,291/- plus interest towards the charges due for supply of electrical energy to consumer No. 2702. Petitioner submits that on receipt of Ext.P1, President of the Panchayat submitted Ext.P2 reply requesting the third Respondent to furnish details regarding the amount demanded in Ext.P1 and that the details were not given.
Subsequently, the panchayat passed Exts.P4 and P5 resolutions. In Ext.P4 panchayat resolved to request the authorities to relieve from its liability to pay the amount demanded in Ext.P1. In Ext.P5 resolution panchayat requested the third Respondent that an amount of Rs. 42,788/- deposited by it towards security deposit for providing street lights under Janamythri scheme is lying in deposit un-utilized and that the same should be adjusted towards the amount demand by Ext.P1. It is stated that due to its financial constraints panchayat submitted Ext.P6 and P7 representations to the Ministers and that by Ext.P8 Government order also sought for details from the panchayat.
It is stated that while the matter was thus pending consideration to the Government, recovery proceedings were initiated and the 4th Respondent issued Exts.P9 and P10 whereby the accounts of the Petitioner in the Sub Treasury, Service Co-operative Society and District Co-operative Bank were frozen. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings, this writ petition is filed.
According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the panchayat has no liability to pay any amount. It is stated that it was therefore that by Ext.P2 they sought for details, which were never furnished by the third Respondent. It is also contended that an amount of Rs. 42,788/- deposited by the panchayat is still remaining un-utilized and therefore there was no reason to initiate coercive action without adjusting the amount and that too at a time when the Government is seized of the issue.
On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board submits that Consumer No. 2702 is none other than the panchayat itself. It is also pointed out that even in the resolutions passed, the panchayat did not dispute its liability and therefore the Board was entitled to take action for recovering its amounts. It is also its case that Ext.P2 representation was not received by the Respondents.
As far as the liability of the panchayat is concerned, it is a fact that in Exts.P4 and P5 resolutions or in Exts. P6 and P7 representations the panchayat did not dispute its liability to pay the amount demanded by the Electricity Board. If that be so, it is too late in the day for the panchayat to dispute its liability to pay the amount demanded by Ext.P9. Even if it is so, if as contended by the counsel for the panchayat Rs. 42,788/- deposited by them for providing street lights is still remaining un-utilized, there is no reason why the third Respondent should not adjust the said amount towards the liability of the panchayat under Ext.P1.
In that view of the matter, I am inclined to think that the third Respondent has unreasonably refused to adjusted the amount deposited by the Petitioner. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:
(A) On production of a copy of this judgment, if any amount deposited by the Petitioner with the third Respondent is remaining un-utilized, the third Respondent will adjust the amount towards the liability of the Petitioner indicated in Ext.P1. Such adjustment shall be made at any rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that for the period subsequent to 2.3.2005 when this writ petition was admitted, the panchayat, shall not be made liable for interest.
(B) On the other hand, if amount is not available as claimed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner will discharge the dues and will be permitted to pay the same by way of six installments. First installment shall be paid along with the monthly bills for the month of April, 2011 and the remaining installments will be paid in the succeeding months without default.
(C) It is directed that if payment is made as above, further action pursuant to Exts.P9 and P10 will stand stayed.
The writ petition is closed.