IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 19244 of 2002(N)
1. M/S. M.D.GEORGE & COMPNAY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.B.JINNAH
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :28/03/2007
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-----------------------------------
O.P. No. 19244 of 2002 N
-----------------------------------------
Dated, this the 29th day of March, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for KSEB.
2. Petitioner is contesting Ext.P1 order in appeal whereunder
appellate authority has estimated the consumption for six months
on account of fault in petitioner’s electricity meter. Petitioner is a
stone crushing unit. The functioning of which is quite uneven as is
evident from Ext.P1 series of electricity bills produced by the
petitioner. On inspection by Anti Power Theft Squad, one phase of
the meter was not found to be working and consequently they
estimated consumption and raised the bills, which ended in Ext.P1.
Ext.P1 is under challenge in this OP. Since the power is distributed
normally in an even manner among the three phases, average
consumption in the two phases, which are working, are taken for
estimation of consumption in the phase, which is faulty. This
method was adopted by the appellate authority in estimating power
consumption. However, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Ext.P11 series of bills and contented that consumption recorded in
O.P.No. 19244/2002
-Page numbers-
subsequent bills after replacement of meter are relevant materials
which should have been taken into account by the appellate
authority. However, learned Standing Counsel pointed out that bills
for some months show that petitioner was virtually closed down and
therefore all subsequent bills cannot be taken. It is seen from
Ext.P11 series of bills that amount for some months go above Rs.
20,000/- and in some case reached up to Rs. 41,000/-. Therefore,
if the bills for subsequent months when petitioner was in full swing
operation was adopted then I am afraid the consequence will be
more disastrous to the petitioner. In the circumstance even though
in principle the argument is sound, I feel on account of judgment in
the case petitioner should not suffer more than the consequence of
order under challenge. I therefore uphold Ext.P10. Further
petitioner is granted three equal monthly installments to clear the
arrears, first of which will be paid on or before 30/04/2007 and
balance on or before last day of two succeeding months.
This OP is disposed of as above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)
jg