IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36195 of 2008(H)
1. K.V.HASSAINAR, AGED 53 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B.
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/08/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J
...............................................
W.P(C) No. 36195 of 2008
.................................................
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a consumer of electricity with consumer
No.5640. On 20.5.2008, the officers of the board conducted an
inspection in the residential premises of the petitioner and find
that the energy meter was tampered with and the same was
therefore not functioning. A Mahazar was prepared and later on
the supply was disconnected. By Ext.P3 bill, the petitioner was
directed to pay energy charges with penalty. The petitioner
challenged the same in appeal before the 2nd respondent, who
rejected the same by Ext.P4 order. The petitioner filed a further
appeal to the 1st respondent which was also rejected by Ext.P5
order. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 bill and Exts.P4 and
P5 orders. The petitioner’s contention is that petitioner has not
tampered with the meter and therefore he is not liable to pay
Ext.P3 bill.
2. On the other hand the counsel for the Electricity Board
would contend that as is revealed from the Mahazar itself,
W.P(C) No. 36195 of 2008 -2-
initially the wife of the petitioner did her best to prevent the the
Anti Power Theft Squad from inspecting the meter and the
premises. According to them the squad which came to the
premises at 6 p.m. on 20.5.2008, till 8.30 p.m. they could not
conduct the inspection since the wife of the petitioner refused to
co-operate in the proceedings. It is only when police assistance
was sought, the petitioner came to the scene and co-operated
with the inspection. On inspection it was found that the meter
was tampered with and was not functioning. They noted the
connected load and issued Ext.P3 bill. According to the learned
counsel for the Electricity Board, Exts.P3, P4 and P5 are
perfectly valid and not liable to interfere with.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. In the writ petition the petitioner has absolutely no
allegation on malafides against any officers of the board. From
the Mahazar and the orders it is very clear that originally the
petitioner’s wife did not co-operate with the inspection and only
when the police assistance was summoned, the petitioner came
to the scene and co-operated with the inspection. In fact he
refused to sign the Mahazar also. I have absolutely no reason to
W.P(C) No. 36195 of 2008 -3-
disbelieve the facts stated in the Mahazar and the orders.
Therefore the petitioner has not been able to produce sufficient
evidence to prove that the petitioner is not guilty of tampering
with the meter. It is clear that the petitioner has tampered with
the meter. The respondent cannot be faulted for issuing the
penal bill in such circumstances. Therefore there is nothing
wrong with Exts.P3, P4 and P5. Therefore the writ petition is
without any merits and accordingly the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs