IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2248 of 2009 -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17236/2009 Dated 22/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ N.A.MUHAMMEDKUNHI, BANGARKUNNU, NELLIKUNNU, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B.ELECTRICAL SECTION, KASARAGOD. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KASARAGOD. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2248 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd June, 2009 dismissing W.P.(C) No.17236 of 2009, the petitioner has filed this writ appeal. 2. The appellant/petitioner is a consumer of electricity. He had obtained electrical connection for agricultural purpose. After inspection of the meter, considering the higher rise in the consumption, it was found out by the officials of the Electricity Board that the consumer is using electricity for domestic purpose also, for which there was no permission. As such, Ext.P1 provisional bill for Rs.25,859/- was issued which was objected to by the appellant and after considering the objections, the provisional bill was confirmed. W.A.No.2248 of 2009 - 2 - This bill was again challenged before the appellate authority and the appellate authority after going through the consumption statement for the last three years, held that there is prima facie material to show that the appellant is consuming electricity both for agricultural and domestic purposes. It had noted that even during rainy season when electricity is not required for pumping water to the agricultural operations (coconut garden), there was high consumption of electricity, clearly indicating that electricity was consumed for domestic purpose also. Considering all these aspects, the appellate authority rejected the contention of the appellant which have been reconsidered by the learned Single Judge and confirmed the billing of the Electricity Board. 3. On going through the entire materials, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the demand made by the Electricity Board for consumption of electricity for domestic purpose and penalising the appellant. W.A.No.2248 of 2009 - 3 - 4. Hence we find no merit in the writ appeal and accordingly it is rejected. It is stated that there is a balance of Rs.10,029/- as on 14.11.2008. The appellant is given four weeks time from today to make the payment as demanded by the Electricity Board uptodate, failing which it is open for the Electricity Board to take appropriate action in accordance with law. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns