IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 OP.No. 5882 of 2002(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- LIJO JOSEPH, PARTNER, M/S. ORMA MARBLE PALACE, THRISSUR ROAD, ANGAMALY-683 572. BY ADV. MR.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ANGAMALY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION,K.S.E.B., PERUMBAVOOR. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.10282/2002 IN OP. NO.5882/2002 DISMISSED 08/09/2009 SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DTD. 15.5.2000 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DTD. 3.11.2000. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17.10.2000 SUBMITTED TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 4.5.01 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 11.7.01 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22.8.01 IN OP. 25254 /01. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GB1/6/00/01 /4494 DTD. 3.11.01 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. R1(a):- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 23.7.01 SENT BY 2ND RESPONDENT. R1(b):- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.GB 1/6/2000-01/4176/15/10 DTD. NIL ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. R1(c):- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.GB/1/6/2000-01 3858 DTD. 27.9.01 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 5882 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th September, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is disputing demand for arrears of the electricity charges. According to the petitioner, originally, by Ext. P1 bill dated 15-5-2000, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 36,074/- for the period from January, 1999 to May, 2000. Thereafter, for the same period, by Ext. P2, the petitioner was directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 18,950/-. The petitioner has got a further contention that in addition to that, the petitioner was directed to pay further amounts by Ext. P4. According to the petitioner, there is no basis for these additional demands. The petitioner earlier approached this Court in which by Ext. P6 judgment, the petitioner was relegated to the remedy by way of appeal. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P7 order was passed in appeal. The petitioner is now challenging Exts. P1, P2, P4 and P7. According to the petitioner, the very fact that by Exts. P1 and P2, for the same periods, different amounts are demanded itself would go to show that there is something wrong with the calculation of the respondents. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent supporting the demand and the appellate order. Their contention is that Ext. P1 relates to demand for electricity charges as per the provisional invoice card at a time when the system of payment through provisional invoice card was in force. The petitioner was not paying any electricity charges for the period from January, 1999 to May, 2000. As per the provisional invoice card, he was liable to pay monthly electricity charges at the rate mentioned in the provisional invoice card. That amount was demanded as per Ext. P1. Thereafter, on the basis of the meter reading at the petitioner's premises, it was found that the petitioner had consumed electricity far in excess than what was permitted as per the provisional invoice card. The O.P. No. 5882/2002 -: 2 :- difference has been demanded by Ext. P2. According to 1st respondent, Exts.P1 and P2 are in respect of the power meter. Petitioner had electrical energy through another light meter in respect of which the petitioner had not made any payment at all for the period from 1/1999 to 5/2000. The arrears as per the meter reading in respect thereof was demanded by Ext. P4, is the contention raised by the 1st respondent. According to the 1st respondent, the demands for arrears are perfectly in accordance with the consumption of electrical energy by the petitioner and no excess amount whatsoever has been demanded. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Apart from the vague contention that demand is without any basis, the petitioner could not contradict any of the contentions of the 1st respondent in the counter affidavit as well as the reasoning given in Ext. P7 appellate order. Admittedly, during the period in question, the petitioner was to pay electricity charges in accordance with the provisional invoice system, as per which the petitioner was required to pay monthly electricity charges at a fixed rate, which the petitioner did not pay for the period in question. That was demanded by Ext. P1. On the basis of actual meter reading, it was found that the petitioner consumed electricity far in excess of the fixed units as per the provisional invoice card. Therefore, naturally, the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges for the extra energy consumed by the petitioner. That only has been demanded by Ext. P2. Petitioner's light meter connection was dismantled only in May, 2001. The petitioner had not paid any electricity charges in respect of that connection for the period from January, 2999 to May, 2000, which only has been demanded by Ext. P4. The petitioner could not satisfy O.P. No. 5882/2002 -: 3 :- me that there is anything wrong with such demand. Therefore, there is no merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/