IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 39486 of 2003(A)
1. MR.M. JAIHIND SAIT, MANAGING PARTNER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER PETER
For Respondent :SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.39486 of 2003
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 13th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Prayer made in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P3 & P5, the
bill issued by the 2nd respondent, and the order confirming the same
issued by the additional 3rd respondent.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Managing
Partner of a firm, which is a consumer under the Electrical Major
Section Central, Ernakulam with consumer No.509394. It is stated
that in the year 2002 the 2nd respondent installed an electronic
meter, which was replaced on 29/05/2003. Subsequently, based on
the consumption that was recorded for the period subsequent
thereto, the petitioner was issued Ext.P3 invoice demanding an
amount of Rs.1,06,132/- allegedly the back assessment for a period
of six months.
3. That demand was challenged before this Court in WP(C)
No.30109/2003. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4
judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedy of
appeal before the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner filed
WP(C) No.39486/2003
-2-
an appeal before the 3rd respondent and that was rejected by Ext.P5
order. It is challenging Ext.P5, the writ petition is filed.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that as is evident from Ext.P4, according to the
respondents, energy consumption recorded in the meter was
erroneous, and it was therefore that Ext.P3 invoice for back
assessment was issued. It is stated that if that were the case, the
respondents ought to have followed the procedure as laid down
under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It is pointed
out that, on the other hand, the 2nd respondent unilaterally
quantified the dues by himself and demanded the amount by Ext.P3,
which is illegal.
5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondent Board, referred to the counter affidavit and sought to
justify Exts.P3 & P5. According to the learned standing counsel, as
is evident from the facts itself, from June, 2003, the meter
recordings show considerable increase in the consumption, and the
only inference was that the previous meter was defective. It is
stated that, it is therefore that Ext.P3 invoice demanding the amount
towards the back assessment for the period permissible under
Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act read with Clause 31(C) of
WP(C) No.39486/2003
-3-
the Conditions of Supply was issued.
6. Irrespective of the details, fact remains that by Ext.P3,
the invoice for back assessment was issued to the petitioner for a
period of six months. The basis of such quantification is that the
meter, which was installed in the premises of the petitioner was
defective, in as much as according to the respondents, the energy
consumed was not correctly recorded.
7. In my view, if that were the case, the procedure, which
ought to have been followed by the respondents, was the one laid
down in Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. Admittedly, this
has not been followed, and if that be so, the impugned demand is
clearly illegal. For that reason, Exts.P3 & P5 will stand set aside.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that
pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court on 16/12/2003,
he has remitted an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Now that I have set
aside Exts.P3 & P5, it is directed that the amount deposited by the
petitioner in terms of the interim order referred to above will be
adjusted towards the petitioner’s future bills,
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg