IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 22578 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.K.MOHAMMED, STAR TOURIST HOME, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-17. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KSEB, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, APTS, CENTRAL REGION, KSEB, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.22578 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging Exts.P4,P7,P12(a) and P12(b). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the owner of a hotel by name Star Tourist Home. In that premises petitioner was availing supply as a LT-VIIA consumer and his consumer numbers are 2704, 2705 and 2706. According to the petitioner, there was an inspection in the premises and the power supply to consumer No.2705 was disconnected with effect from 5.6.1997. It is stated that, thereafter a demand was issued which was challenged before this court in O.P.No.27589/01. By Ext.P5 judgment, this court disposed of the Original Petition directing that the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer, to consider the petitioner's representation where he WP(c).No.22578/08 2 disputed his liability to pay monthly charges, as the electric connection has been disconnected. Stay was also granted, on the petitioner remitting 25% of the amount demanded. 3. It would appear that subsequently Ext.P8 order was passed, in which reference has been made to consumer No.2706 only, in the context of request made by the petitioner for shifting the meter. It is specifically stated that in respect of consumer Nos.2704 and 2706 up to date remittance of whole of arrears has been made. Again, the petitioner approached this court by filing WP(c).No, 2392/04 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment. In that judgment also it is specifically stated that the dispute was only regarding consumer No.2705. Since, the petitioner had not complied with the condition of remittance as ordered in Ext.P5 judgment an opportunity was given to him to make remittance. Accordingly, the petitioner made remittance and on that basis the power supply was restored with effect from 13.2.2004. It is stated WP(c).No.22578/08 3 that a representation was also made in the meanwhile, which was disposed of by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P12 order. A reading of Ext.P12 order shows that the 4th respondent has unilaterally dealt with consumer No.2706 and ordered that the petitioner should pay the amount mentioned in the order. 4. As already stated, in respect of consumer No.2706, in Ext.P8 order it has been specifically stated that there was no arrears. Similarly in both Exts.P5 and P10 judgment this court has also held that the dispute between the parties was confined to consumer No.2705. Representation of the petitioner which lead to Ext.P12 was also confined to consumer No.2705 only. It is on that representation the 4th respondent ventured to adjudicate in respect of consumer No.2706 and held the petitioner liable for Rs.16,329/-. Proceeding further, the claim of the respondent in so far as consumer No.2705 also has been examined and the demand for Rs.1,06,064/- raised against the petitioner has been upheld. It is this order which is mainly challenged in this WP(c).No.22578/08 4 writ petition. 5. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. From the facts as stated above, it is evident that there was no dispute between the parties in so far as consumer No.2706 is concerned. As is evident from Exts.P5, P8 and Ext.P10 referred to above, the dispute was confined to consumer No.2705 only. If that be so, Ext.P12 order passed by the 4th respondent on the representation filed by the petitioner in so far as it concerns consumer No.2706 is totally without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. Be that as it may, if the respondents' have any monetary claim in so far as consumer No.2706 is concerned, they may pursue the matter independently in accordance with law. 7. Counsel for the petitioner also challenges the findings in so far as consumer No.2705 is concerned. One of the findings against the petitioner is regarding the meter installed in the premises. It is stated that the meter was installed was faulty and that bill for Rs.9768/- was issued WP(c).No.22578/08 5 re-assessing the consumption as 400 units per month. If a meter is found to be faulty, assessment of the quantity consumed has to be done not by the Board but by the Electrical Inspector. Ext.P12 does not show that such a process has been completed in this case. If that be so, unilateral assessment of consumption as done by the respondent is clearly without jurisdiction and therefore cannot be sustained. 8. Yet another demand that is raised against the petitioner is towards the minimum charges and interest thereon. If under the regulation even after disconnection, the consumer is liable for payment of minimum charges, the petitioner is certainly liable to pay the same. Similarly, regarding the liability for payment of interest, since it is so provided for in the conditional supply of electric energy framed by the Board, that also cannot be disputed. Therefore, the demand for minimum charges and interest as claimed in Ext.P12 cannot be interfered with. WP(c).No.22578/08 6 9. In view of the discussion as above, the writ petition is disposed of as above. 10. The findings in Ext.P12 in so far as it concerns consumer No.2706 will stand vacated. However, if the respondents have any claim in this respect they are free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Re- assessment of consumption and the amount demanded on that basis in respect of consumer No.2705 will also stand vacated. The respondent will be free to issue a revised demand in so far as minimum charges and interest, that is due from the petitioner concerning consumer No.2705. The liability of the petitioner shall be re-quantified as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. 11. Counsel for the petitioner complains that during the pendency of the writ petition, an application was made for conversion of his LT connection into HT connection and that the same is pending. It is directed that, once the aforesaid liability is discharged by the petitioner, WP(c).No.22578/08 7 respondents shall take necessary action on the request so made by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.22578/08 8