IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7796 of 2007(C)
1. B.K.ABDUL MAJEED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. ASSISTANT ESNGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------
WP(C) No.7796 of 2007
--------------------------
Dated, this the 7th day of October, 2009
------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the Manager of “Pallikkara Ice Plant”, an
industrial consumer availing of supply of electrical energy with
consumer No.3317 under LT IV tariff.
2. On 22/02/2005, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the
Board inspected the premises, along with the 4th respondent. At the
time of inspection, the petitioner was present. The mahazar
prepared, a copy of which made available by the learned standing
counsel for the respondent, shows that it was found that four
numbers of security seals provided in the meter cover were
damaged, the screws provided in the meter nameplate were seen
loosened and partially detached, and that the counter fixing screw
of the energy meter was also seen loosened. It is also recorded that
the petitioner admitted that every month, one Shri.Laly used to visit
his premises just before the meter reading date, and used to adjust
the meter reading in the reverse direction by adjusting the counter
WP(C) No.7796/2007
-2-
after opening the meter cover and security seals, and that for every
such acts, Shri.Laly was being paid amount varying from Rs.600/-
(Rupees six hundred only) to Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand
only).
3. Based on the findings at the time of inspection, a penalty
bill was issued to the petitioner under Clause 43 (d) of the
Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy demanding a sum of
Rs.6,77,108/- (Rupees six lakhs seventy seven thousand one
hundred and eight only). That was challenged before this Court in
WP(C) No.11841/2005, and that writ petition was disposed of by
judgment dated 07/04/2005 directing the respondents to issue a
detailed calculation statement to the petitioner, and to reconnect
the supply on the petitioner paying Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh
only). The amount was paid, power supply was restored and the
statement was also issued.
4. The statement was again challenged in WP(C)
No.27497/2005. By judgment dated 23/09/2005 that writ petition
was disposed of directing the petitioner to file his objection to the
statement, and further directed that the supply shall not be
WP(C) No.7796/2007
-3-
disconnected on the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only). Payment was made and the
objection filed was considered. But the demand was confirmed.
This order was again challenged in WP(C) No.30301/2005. That
writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file an
appeal against the impugned order. Accordingly, Ext.P1 appeal was
filed before the 2nd respondent, and the petitioner was also heard on
two occasions. Finally, by Ext.P2, finding that this was a clear case
of theft of energy, the 2nd respondent reduced the demand to
Rs.2,96,115/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety six thousand one hundred
and fifteen only). Consequently, a revised calculation statement was
issued as per Ext.P3 and a revised invoice was issued demanding
the balance amount due, as per Ext.P4 . It was thereupon that this
writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P2 to P4.
5. Though submissions were made by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner regarding the correctness of the finding of
theft of energy, having regard to the facts as stated above, which
have also been recorded in the mahazar prepared at the time of
inspection, which also carries the signature of the petitioner, I am
WP(C) No.7796/2007
-4-
not inclined to take a view different from what has been taken in
Ext.P2.
6. The learned senior counsel further canvassed for the
position that initially, the liability of the petitioner was quantified on
the assumption that the unit worked for 18 hours per day, and in
Ext.P2 order of the appellate authority, the working hours have been
reduced to 17 hours. Counsel submits that the unit is an Ice Plant,
and that duration of working hours varies from season to season,
and that in the absence of any material, the respondents could not
have fixed the working hours as 18 hours or 17 hours for
quantifying the dues of the petitioner.
7. First of all, the petitioner has not produced any material
to indicate that what exactly is the working hours in his unit. From
the submissions made, what is disclosed is that the quantity of Ice
manufactured once in a while will be sufficient for a week, and on
that basis, it is contended that the Unit does not work on all days.
However, the fact remains that even if the manufactured ice is
stored, and even for storage purposes, freezers will have to work,
which needs consumption of energy as well. If that be so, the Unit
WP(C) No.7796/2007
-5-
will be consuming energy round the clock and if so, the estimation
done adopting 17 hours as the working hours cannot be said to be
perverse warranting interference.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I cannot accept the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg