IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 11523 of 2002(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KANDCO POLYMERS, ANANDAPURAM, KUMBALA (PO), KASARGOD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, M.DINESH KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KASARGOD. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KUMBALA. 4. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE) VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, ALONG WITH OP NO. 20914 OF 2002 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.20023/2002 IN OP. NO.11523/2002 Dismissed 04.12.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NO.6605 DT. 7.3.02. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO.HTB/23/3268/1619 DT. 11.4.02. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.Nos.11523 & 20914 of 2002 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the same in both the original petitions. The petitioner is a High Tension consumer having consumer Code No.23/3268. Grievance raised is against the exorbitant bills issued by the respondents. Challenging the bill dated 7.7.2001 the petitioner filed O.P.No.27670/2001, wherein this court granted stay directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.12,000/- and file an appeal within two weeks. A subsequent bill dated 11.9.2001 was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.P.No.29433/2001, wherein as an interim measure the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs.25,000/- within two weeks which was complied with. A later bill dated 8.10.2001 was challenged by the petitioner in O.P.No.32055/2001. Therein also, this court directed the petitioner to remit 50% of the bill amount. According to the petitioner, he had installed a T.O.D. meter to know the exact consumption of energy and it revealed that the maximum consumption by the petitioner company is 100 KVA and the respondent calculated it as more than 200 KVA. It is stated in the original petition that excess bills have been challenged by by filing OP 11523 & 20914/2002 2 appeals and he had filed an application dated 19.12.2001 for re-assessing and reducing contract demand of the petitioner company. The demand is to reduce the same to 120 KVA. 2. In O.P.No.11523/2002, the challenge is against Ext.P2 bill dated 11.4.2002. The plea raised is that the bill was issued without complying with the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment. In C.M.P.No.20023/2002 a conditional order of stay was granted directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. One Lakh. 3. In O.P.No.20914/2002, another bill dated 15.7.2002 issued for the period from December, 2001 to May, 2002 showing an amount of Rs.8,89,693/- is under challenge. The same facts have been reiterated in this original petition also. Therein, there was an interim order of stay of collection of the amount as per the demand. 4. In the counter affidavit filed in O.P.No.20914/2002, it is stated that the bills for the months 7, 8 and 9/2001 are in accordance with the tariff rules and agreement conditions. The respondents have produced Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) wherein the petitioner has been allowed to revise the contract demand to 120 KVA. Ext.R2(b) shows that the same has been passed based on the application dated 19.12.2001 which is referred to by the petitioner in both the original petitions. A reading of Ext.R2(b) shows that his application was considered and it was found that the consumer is OP 11523 & 20914/2002 3 eligible for reduction in contract demand and accordingly sanction has been given for reduction in the contract demand of the petitioner from existing 375 KVA to 120 KVA from the date of execution of fresh agreement. 5. As far as the challenge against the earlier bills are concerned, it is clear that the petitioner has challenged the same before the Executive Engineer and those have to be separately dealt with. As far as these two original petitions are concerned, the main ground raised by the petitioner is that in view of the application filed by him to reduce the contract demand, the bills issued cannot be justified. There is no challenge against Ext.R2(b) in O.P.No.20914/2002. 6. In the light of Ext.R2(b), if any further grievance is there for the petitioner against the disputed bills produced in the original petitions, it will be open to him to challenge the same before the competent authority, if not already done, within a period of six weeks from today. The competent authority will look into the same and after considering the matter, will pass appropriate orders. The original petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 11523 & 20914/2002 4 T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. Nos. 11523 & 20914of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 4th December, 2008.