IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16133 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- A.MANAF, KODIVILA VEEDU, NJAVELIKONAM, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE (URBAN), POWER HOUSE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KILIMANOOR-695 601, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma WP(C).No. 16133 of 2011(N) APPENDIX Petitioners Exhibits: Ext.P1: True copy of the Order No. DB 58/APTS/KMR/10-11/10 dated 28.4.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P2: True copy of the Final assessment bill dated 28.4.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P3: True copy of Appeal submitted before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P4: True copy of the receipt dated 10.5.2010 Ext.P5: True copy of the D.D. for an amount of Rs.2,000/- in favour of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P6: True copy of the Test Certificate issued by the 1st respondent Ext.P7: True copy of the Order in Appeal No.67/2010 dated 6.5.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P8: True copy of the bill for Rs.3598/- issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P8(a): True copy of the bill for Rs.1647/- issued by the 3rd respondent. /True copy/ P.A. To Judge jma P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 16133 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. The Anti- Power Theft Squad of the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) headed by the third respondent inspected the petitioner's residence on 19.4.2010. It was then found that he had taken unauthorised extension of the electricity connection to the outhouse in the very same premises wherein the petitioner was running a commercial venture using computers and a photostat machine. A mahazar was prepared and it was served on the petitioner along with a provisional order and demand. The petitioner objected to the same. He was heard and thereafter a final order was passed and it was communicated to the petitioner along with Ext.P1 letter dated 28.4.2010 calling upon him to remit the sum of Rs.1,82,500/- within seven days. He was also informed that he has the right to file an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer under section 127 of the Electricity Act. Along with Ext.P1, Ext.P2 demand notice was also enclosed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal after remitting 50% of the amount demanded in WPC No.16133/2011 2 Ext.P2. The only ground raised in Ext.P3 appeal was that the photostat machine and computers were brought to the out house only on 15.3.2010 and that for being shifted to the office at Nedumangad. The Appellate Authority heard the petitioner on 4.5.2011 and thereafter passed Ext.P7 order. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was that the meter installed in the petitioner's premises was found faulty after the inspection and therefore the assessment made by the third respondent is faulty and incorrect and cannot be relied on. By Ext.P7 order passed on 6.5.2011, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal upholding the demand but with a direction that no surcharge or interest shall be levied during the period when the appeal was pending. Hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P1, P2 and P7 orders. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that as the meter installed in his premises was faulty, the assessment made by the third respondent which was upheld by the Appellate Authority is faulty and incorrect and it cannot form basis for levy of penal charges. It was also contended that the basis on which Rs.1,82,500/- was fixed as the amount payable by the petitioner is WPC No.16133/2011 3 not discernible from the impugned orders and therefore on that ground also the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Relying on Ext.P8 series of bimonthly bills issued in the month of 11.4.2011 it is contended that the the average consumption is only 324 units and therefore the demand is exorbitant. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. The petitioner's premises was inspected by the Anti-Power Theft Squad on 19.4.2010. The petitioner had no case in his objection filed to the provisional assessment order or in Ext.P3 appeal, which was filed on 11.5.2010, that the meter installed in his premises was faulty. The meter was found to be faulty only long after the inspection. The petitioner applied for inspecting the meter by remitting the fee of Rs.310/- on the allegation that it is faulty on 31.8.2010, nearly four months after the inspection. In such circumstances, the mere fact that at a later point of time the meter was faulty is not a reason to hold that on the date of inspection the meter was faulty and therefore the assessment made by the third respondent is erroneous and exorbitant. The petitioner has virtually admitted in the appeal memorandum that three computers and a photostat machine were kept in the outhouse. His WPC No.16133/2011 4 only contention was that the machines were not being used and it was kept there for being shifted to an office at Nedumangad. He had also admitted that he had taken a temporary connection to the outhouse. If as claimed by the petitioner, the computers and photostat machines were kept in the outhouse for being shifted to an office at Nedumangad, there was no need for taking a temporary connection to the outhouse. It is thus evident from the petitioner's own statement that he was running a commercial establishment using the energy supplied for domestic purpose. Such being the situation, the assessment made by the third respondent which was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps