IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16848 of 2003(E)
1. JACOB MATHEW M., SAKUDA MALLIK &
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY
... Respondent
2. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :21/05/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003
.........................................................................
Dated this the 21st May , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who is a consumer of electricity being
distributed by the respondents as a licensee in the area in
Thrissur, has come up before this Court with the following
prayers:
“i) Call for the records and;
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction, directing the
respondents to reconnect the electricity
connection to the petitioner’s shop No.25/699
with consumer No. 7445-C forthwith and ;
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ , order or direction, directing
the respondents to furnish the index meter
reading of consumer No.7445-C for the period
from 4/91 to 1/2001 and further direction to
keep in abeyance all other coercive steps.”
2. The case projected in the Writ Petition is that there is
absolutely no rhyme or reason for having issued Ext.P1 bill dated
W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003
2
16.09.2002 demanding to satisfy a huge amount stated as
arrears of energy charges till March, 2001, lest coercive steps
should be taken against the petitioner.
3. The sequence of events as described in the Writ Petition
shows that on receipt of Ext. P1, the petitioner, who is
conducting a shop dealing with selling Greeting Cards, sent
Ext.P2 representation seeking for details/clarification to sustain
Ext.P1. Because of coercive steps, the petitioner was also
constrained to approach this Court along with a similarly
situated person by filing O.P. 29165 of 2002, which was
disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment passed on 08.10.2002
directing the respondents to consider the representations
preferred by the petitioners in accordance with law and to pass
appropriate orders, simultaneously intercepting the coercive
proceedings till such time . Pursuant to Ext. P3 judgment,
Ext.P4 statement was supplied to the petitioner showing the
amounts due from the petitioner for different periods from April
1991 to March 2001, however without giving the index of the
meter reading and also the corresponding rates of energy
W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003
3
charges payable at the relevant time. This made the petitioner
to file a further representation as borne by Ext.P5 referring to
the actual facts and figures . In the meanwhile, the power was
disconnected, which hence was sought to be remedied by filing
this Writ Petition. It is stated from the part of the petitioner that
pursuant to the interim order, the power was restored and that
the petitioner is enjoying the same.
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit seeking
to sustain the figures and action pursued by them. It is stated
in the counter affidavit that an arrear bill had already been
issued to the petitioner, which however was not honoured by
him and it was in the said circumstance, that the entire
outstanding liability was sought to be cleared by issuing Ext.P1.
But for the averments in the said counter affidavit, no materials
have been produced before this Court to substantiate the
contentions. It also remains to be a fact that the connection was
never dismantled at any point of time, though it was cut off,
which was subsequently restored pursuant to the interim order.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to place
W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003
4
reliance on Ext.P6 bill issued after the ‘spot billing’ was
introduced, to show that the consumption of the petitioner was
quite consistent and this being the position, the figures given
by the respondents in Ext.P4 (particularly as given tabulated at
page 3 of Ext.P4 in respect of the period from September 1997
till January 2001 showing much variation as to the consumed
units and the amount payable) are not correct or sustainable.
More so, when the nature of business being pursued by the
petitioner is not a power oriented business, but a shop dealing
with selling Greeting Cards, which submission is sought to be
substantiated with reference to the consistent level of energy
consumption and extent of liability as revealed from Ext.P6
series bills issued after the introduction of ‘spot billing’
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
first petitioner to Ext. P3 judgment who had filed O.P.No. 29165
of 2002 along with the petitioner, on receipt of similar bills and
on being confronted with similar situation, had approached this
Court by filing O.P. 7214 of 2003, wherein interference was
declined by the learned single Judge relegating the petitioner to
W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003
5
avail the alternate remedy, which was subjected to challenge
by filing W.A.No. 1384 of 2009. During the pendency of the said
Writ Appeal, the parties were directed to be present before the
Court and the records were also perused . After perusal of the
records and hearing the parties concerned, the Division Bench of
this Court passed the final verdict on 16.07.2009, whereby, to
put a quietus to the matter, particularly when the records were
very old and the correctness and sustainability of figures were
disputed much, a workable solution was carved out and
appropriate directions were given as given in paragraph No.3 of
the judgment. This Court finds that a similar course has to be
pursued in the connected case of this petitioner as well.
7. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to re-consider
the matter in the light of the judgment rendered by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1384 of 2009 and re-fix
the liability of the petitioner . However, since it is shown by the
respondents in Ext. P4 that the variation in consumption is
mainly for the period from 9/1997, the period to be reckoned, in
the light of observations of the Division Bench, is for the period
W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003
6
from 9/1997 till 3/2001. The matter shall be considered and
finalised as above, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and the outcome shall be communicated to the
petitioner by Registered Post as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment; which shall be satisfied by the petitioner within two
weeks thereafter. Subject to this, further recovery
proceedings/coercive steps, stated as being pursued against the
petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being.
The Writ Petition is disposed of .
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk
W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003
7
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
……………………………………………
W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003
……………………………………………
Dated this the 21st May, 2010
J U D G M E N T