IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16665 of 2009(C)
1. JAYARAJ,ROSE COTTAGE,SETTLEMENT COLONY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,ELECTRICAL
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KSEB,ADIMALI.
5. ANTI POWER THEFT SQUARD REP BY ITS DEPUT
6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,(R.R),TALUK OFFICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.R.RAJAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.16665 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P1 invoice, final order if
any passed pursuant thereto, Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 revenue
recovery notices and Ext.P7 communication. He also
challenge certain provisions of the Kerala Electricity Board
Terms and Conditions.
2. Facts pleaded by the petitioner are that, he was
availing of supply of energy of electricity with Consumer
No.3492. It is stated that while so Anti Power Theft Squad
of the Board inspected his premises on 4th February,
2008 and issued a mahazar. It is stated that in the Mahazar
unauthorized additional load was found and that he was
issued Ext.P1 bill demanding Rs.1,84,118/-.Petitioner
contends that to Ext.P1 he filed an objection. The claim in
the writ petition is that the copy of Mahazar given to him
WP(c).No.16665/09 2
was not legible. The objections said to have been filed against
Ext.P1 also has not been produced. It is stated that he moved
the Adalat, which resulted in Ext.P3 and that thereafter Exts.P4
and P5 revenue recovery notices were issued. At this stage,
complaining that the order passed in the appeal filed by the
petitioner against Ext.P1 was not communicated, he
submitted Ext.P6. To Ext.P6, he was issued Ext.P7 informing
that final order passed in the appeal was sent to him and the
same was returned as unclaimed.
3. In the writ petition, petitioner avers that, he was
availing of power supply and in the APTS inspection
unauthorized and additional load was found and that the final
order on the appeal has not been communicated to him.
4. The case was adjourned for the Standing Counsel to
obtain instructions. Today the Standing Counsel has produced
before me the Mahazar prepared at the time of inspection on
4th April, 2008. In the mahazar it is stated that, on account of
the default committed by the petitioner in remitting the
WP(c).No.16665/09 3
electricity charges, supply to his premises was remaining
disconnected. However, petitioner had made unauthorized
connection to the main line and was abstracting energy. A
reading of the Mahazar also shows that several portions of
the house of the petitioner were let out on rent and to all
those places, petitioner had installed his own meter to record
the energy consumed by the tenants. Therefore, the averment
in the writ petition that on the APTS inspection what was
found was additional load is factually wrong. That apart the
non-production of the mahazar on the ground that the copy
served was not legible also is suspicious.
In any case, since the petitioner has made wrong factual
statements before this court, I do not think that the petitioner
should be shown any indulgence.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.16665/09 4