| The review appellant is running a hotel in the name and style ‘Paulson Park Hotel’ having consumer number 5481 under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, College, Ernakulam. On 5-9-2001, the review appellant had submitted an application before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, College, Ernakulam for conversion of existing LT service connection to HT, after remitting the required application fee and after complying with all necessary formalities. The review appellant had executed an OYEC agreement with the Assistant Executive Engineer for the HT supply on 03-05-2002 and remitted an amount of Rs. 2,84,400.00 towards cash deposit for power allocation to the extent of 180 kVA with a contract demand of 150 kVA as per the application submitted for HT supply. The grievance of the review appellant is that the inordinate delay to provide HT service connection had resulted in bringing to a halt of functioning of the hotel, which consequently resulted in default in payment of electricity charges and subsequently dismantlement of connection.
The review appellant approached the CGRF requesting to treat him as a deemed HT consumer with effect from 05-09-2001 till dismantling of the service and further claiming a sum of Rs.1,63,71,357.00 towards loss and damages suffered by the appellant on account of non conversion of the service connection from LT to HT category. But the CGRF dismissed the petition as it is found no merit in the contentions of the review appellant; vide order no. 30/2006-07 dated 10-12-2007. Aggrieved by the order passed by the CGRF the review appellant filed appeal petition before this Authority which was disposed of with a direction to treat the review appellant as deemed HT consumer with effect from 08-02-2003 to 16-05-2006 vide order No. 02/2008 of 14-3-2008.
In the review petition nothing is pointed out which escaped the notice of this Authority while disposing the appeal petition. The review jurisdiction is limited to rectify a mistake or an error which is apparent on the face of records and it cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction. The Hon’ble High Court in the common judgment dated 27-11-2013 in WP (C) Nos. 20445 and 26745 of 2008 have directed this Authority to dispose of Appeal Petition No P/002/2008 afresh. Accordingly this Authority has considered the reliefs sought for in the original appeal filed by the appellant in P/002/2008 and disposed of the case. Now the relief claimed in the review petition is for a different matter. If the review appellant is aggrieved by the order of this Authority, it is free for him to challenge that order before the appropriate authority. Here there is no mistake apparent on the face of records is pointed out or anything which was not brought out before this Authority when the case was decided so as to review the order. In this background, this Authority didn’t find any reason to intervene the order already issued.
In view of the above discussions, I hold that review petition is not maintainable as there is no cause or sufficient reason established by the review appellant, for the review of the order already issued. Hence the review petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. |
|
|
Data
|
| Size |
156.09 KB |
| Downloads |
1263 |
| Created |
2017-03-27 00:00:00 |
|
|
|
Overview
Search Downloads
Submit file
Up
REVIEW PETITION NO. P/058/2016 Sri. C.P. Paul Ernakulam 