IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2007 / 9TH SRAVANA 1929 OP.No. 19951 of 2002(A) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ HEERA CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P) LTD., VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14, REPRESENTED BY A.R.NAIR, GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.HARUN-AL-RASHEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WEST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN (FOR R1 TO R3) THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.19951/2002 -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1(A): COPY OF BILL DATED 03.02.2000 NO.251657 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS TO CONSUMER NO.6883. EXT. P1(B): COPY OF BILL DATED 03.04.2000 NO.18908 ISSUED BY -DO- TO CONSUMER NO.6883. EXT. P1(C): COPY OF BILL DATED 3.6.2000 NO.457707 ISSUED BY -DO- TO CONSUMER NO.6883. EXT. P1(D): COPY OF BILL DATED 2.8.2000 NO.540907 ISSUED BY -DO- TO CONSUMER NO.6883. EXT. P1(E): COPY OF BILL DATED 6.10.2000 NO. 8903557 ISSUED BY -DO- TO CONSUMER NO.6883. EXT. P1(F): COPY OF BILL DATED 4.12.2000 NO. 7915007 ISSUED BY -DO- TO CONSUMER NO.6883. EXT. P1(G): COPY OF BILL DATED 2.2.2001 NO.8407407 ISSUED BY -DO- TO CONSUMER 6883. EXT. P1(H): COPY OF BILL DATED 7.4.2001 NO.8214757 ISSUED BY -DO- TO CONSUMER NO.6883. EXT. P2: COPY OF BILL NO.009183 DATED 14.6.2001 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSUMER NO.8818. EXT. P3: COPY OF SPLIT UP DETAILS OF THE EXHIBIT-P2 BILL. EXT. P4: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 2.08.2001 STATING THE TEST REPORT ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, HEERA CONSTRUCTION CO.(P) LTD. EXT. P5: COPY OF BILL DATED 2.8.2001 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSUMER NO.8818. EXT. P6: COPY OF SPLIT UP DETAILS OF EXT. P5 BILL ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.3.2002 IN O.P.NO.24152 OF 2001(A) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT. P8: COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 1.4.2002 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P9: COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.5.2002 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P10: COPY OF REVISED CALCULATION STATEMENT ISSUED BASED ON EXT.P9: /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.19951 of 2002-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of July, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is a private limited company engaged in the construction of residential flats. The petitioner was consuming electrical energy for its project, viz. Heera Kinara at Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. For construction purpose they were being supplied electricity through a single phase connection available in the house constructed in the site which was used as site office. Thereafter, in January 2000 the petitioner had got a three phase connection, evidently after completion of the construction. 2. For the period from 1.1.2000 to 7.4.2001 the petitioner was issued eight different bills showing amounts, viz. Rs.6,357/- for the bill dated 3.2.2000 and at the rate of Rs.10,990/- for the bills dated 3.4.2000, 3.6.2000, 2.8.2000, 6.10.2000, 4.12.2000, 2.2.2001 and 7.4.2001. It appears that the meter got burnt in April 2001 and there was an inspection also based on the information given by the petitioner. Thereafter, the meter was replaced and a bill dated 14.6.2001 demanding Rs.3,65,821/- towards electricity charges for the period from 7.1.2000 to 3.6.2001 was issued. It is OP 19951/2002 -2- the case of the petitioner that this bill was issued ignoring the bills issued earlier as mentioned above. 3. A reference to Ext.P3 shows that for a period of 10 months from 7.1.2000 to 18.10.2000 400 units per month are shown and for six months thereafter 6115 units and for 44 days thereafter 9376 units are shown. Thereafter, the petitioner again persisted with a complaint stating the true facts and requesting to replace the meter . The test report of the meter shows that R phase current coil and pressure coil terminal of the meter was burnt. Again, Ext.P5 ill was issued practically revising Ext.P3. In Ext.P5, for the period of six months from 19.10.2000 to 18.4.2001 9173 units have been shown as electricity consumed by the petitioner and for 44 days, ie., from 19.4.2001 to 3.6.2001, 14064 units are shown as consumed and a total amount of Rs.5,03,841/0 is shown as due. 4. The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed complaint and filed an original petition as O.P.No.24152/2001 seeking to quash the bills issued. This court by Ext.P7 judgment, directed the appeal filed by the petitioner to be disposed of and Ext.P9 is the order passed in the appeal. The complaint raised by the petitioner in this original petition is that in Ext.P9, the arguments of the petitioner have not been considered at all and the findings rendered on various points are not correct. OP 19951/2002 -3- 5. The dispute in this case actually relates to the liability to pay the demand for three different periods. In Ext.P9, the Executive Engineer has found that the calculation of the amount due for 46 days, i.e. from 19.4.2001 to 3.6.2001 is apparently wrong, as the entire period was not taken. Apart from that, other defects are also mentioned in the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly argued that there is no mention of the payments made by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 series bills in the order Ext.P9. It is pointed out that those bills were in respect of the very same period covered upto 7.4.2001 and therefore the said amounts are liable to be deducted. It is also pointed out that going by the relevant regulations framed by the Board, the calculation is highly excessive. The assumptions made by the authority who issued the bills are not correct. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Board. The issue has to be considered in the light of the grounds stated by the petitioner in Ext.P8. In Ext.P9 the only consideration was as regards the liability for payment consequent on the burning of the meter in respect of consumer No.8818. The petitioner had a case that the periods mentioned therein and the assessment, viz., 6115 units for the period between 19.10.2000 to 18.4.2001 and 9376 units between 19.4.2001 to 3.6.2001 in Ext.P2, is highly exorbitant. The petitioner has got a further OP 19951/2002 -4- case that for the very same periods the assessment in Ext.P6 as 9173 units and 14064 units respectively, is faulty. I find that the said issue is not addressed in Ext.P9. The matter is regulated by the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy framed by the Board at the relevant time and the liability can be assessed only in the light of the above provisions. 7. Now after the 2003 Act new regulations have been framed by the Board. It is submitted that third respondent is the authority competent to decide the dispute in the light of the new regulations also. 8. Therefore, I quash Ext.P9 and there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the matter afresh in the light of the grounds stated by the petitioner. The petitioner will be offered a personal hearing before any decision is taken. Orders will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till finalisation of the same, no further coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents to enforce the demands made as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P5. The original petition is disposed of in the above terms. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) OP 19951/2002 -5- kav/ T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.19951 of 2002-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 31st day of July, 2007