IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 20414 of 1998(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOHN VILANGADAN, VILANGADAN HOUSE, BTS ROAD, EDAPPALLY , KOCHI-682 024. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, POWER HOUSE BUIDLING, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.35972 OF 1998 IN OP.NO.20414 OF 1998 DISMISSED 1.2.2008. SD/= P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF INVOICE NO.60895 DTD 20.12.97 FOR RS.37,540/= PAYABLE ON 15.1.98 AND SIGNED BY THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT IN THE OFFICE OF R3 WAS SERVED ON THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 COPY OF BIMONTHLY SPOT BILLS NO, B2-015797 DTD 6.12.97 FOR 224 UNITS AND NO.N1-46672 DTD 9.2.98 FOR 207 UNITS ISSUED BY THE STAFF OF R3. EXT.P3 COPY OF REVISED INVOICE NO.RI-90083 DTD 20.12.97 FOR RS.30,233/= WAS ISSUED IN APRIL, 1998 BY THE SR.SUPDT. OFFICE OF R3. EXT.P4 COPY OF APPEAL PETITIN DTD 15.5.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP.9128/98-J ISSUED BY THIS COURT DTD4.6.98. EXT.P6 COPY OF EXPLANATORY NOTE SUBMITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. EXT.P7 COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.GB.I/22/98-99/3171 DTD 23.9.98. EXT.P8 COPY OF REVISED BILL CL.NO.082295 DTD 15.10.98 FOR RS.27,370/= ISSUED BY THE SR. SUPDT. UNDEDR R3. EXT.P8(a) COPY OF CALCULATION SHEET EXT.P9 COPY OF FOREIGN LIQUOR LICENCE NO.24/1992/93 DTD 15.5.92 ISSUED TO ONE ANANDAN BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P10 COPY OF LICENCE NO.29/96-97 DTD 2.4.96 ISSUED TO ONE K.B.SASI BY THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P11 COPY OF LICENCE NO.8/97-98 DTD 2.4.97 ISSUED TO SASI, BY THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P12 COPY OF PROPERTY TAX OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO.87301 DTD 16.12.94 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, CORPN OF COCHIN IN RESPECT OF SHO NOS.34/1837 AND 34/1838 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3 EXTRACT OF THE METER READING REGISTER PERTAINING TO THE CONSUMER. EXT.R3(a) CALCULATION DO P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.NO.20414 OF 1998-E -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. He claims that he was paying the energy charges promptly and regularly in terms of the provisional invoice card issued to him. It is the petitioner's case that the Board had arbitrarily issued Ext.P1 adjustment invoice dated 20.12.1997 demanding payment of Rs.37,540/= as energy charges for a period of 51 months commencing from October 1992 and ending with June 1997. The petitioner further states that in Ext.P1 adjustment invoice, the opening meter reading in October 1992 was shown as 0005 and the closing meter reading in June 1997 was shown as 15720 and contends that as the meter installed in his premises is a four digit meter, there is no basis for the levy of energy charges in Ext.P1. Since the petitioner did not pay the amount demanded in Ext.P1, electricity supply was disconnected after 15.1.1998. Thereafter the petitioner filed a representation dated 7.4.1998 objecting to the levy of charges as per Ext.P1. The petitioner further submits that thereafter the original of Ext.P1 was returned to the respondents O.P.NO.20414/98 2 after retaining a photostat copy and on realising the mistake in Ext.P1, the Board issued Ext.P3 revised invoice dated 20.12.1997 demanding the sum of Rs.30,233/= as energy charges for the period from October 1992 to June 1997. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal dated 15.5.1998 before the 2nd respondent and thereafter filed O.P.No.9128 of 1998 in this Court. By Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 4.6.1998 this Court disposed of the said original petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. There was also a direction to the respondents to restore the power supply in the event of the petitioner depositing one third of the amount demanded in Ext.P3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as directed in Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner remitted the sum of Rs. 10,088/= on 17.6.1998 and that thereafter Ext.P4 appeal was heard and disposed of by Ext.P7 order dated 23.9.1998 rejecting his contentions. The learned counsel further submitted that along with Ext.P7, Ext.P8 revised demand and Ext.P8(a) calculation statement were also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has in this original petition challenged Exts.P7, P8 and P8(a) and prayed for the following reliefs: O.P.NO.20414/98 3 i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Exts.P7, P8 and P8(a). ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the second and third respondents to issue a revised adjustment bill based on the figure 5720 units registered in the meter as revealed at the meter reading in 6/1997, and based on the tariff rates prevailing at the relevant periods. iii. to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to refund the excess amount paid by the petitioner to the Board in connection with disputed Exts.P1,P3 and P8 bills. 2. I have heard Sri. M. Saseendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.K. Karunakaran, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the findings in Ext.P7 are perverse and are not rested on true correct and facts. The learned counsel also submitted that there was no periodical reading of the meter and that the meter reading recorded in Ext.P7 is erroneous. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with reference to the pleadings in the original petition that the entries in the meter reading card were not initialed by the officers of the Board. The learned counsel also pointed out that he was running O.P.NO.20414/98 4 a business in spare parts and not in foreign liquor as stated in Ext.P7 and that having regard to the connected load and number of electrical fittings in his shop, the monthly consumption cannot exceed 350 units. The learned counsel submitted that as the demand in Ext.P3 for the period from October 1992 to June 1997 was made after a long delay, the petitioner is not liable to honour the said demand. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board on the other hand contended that the main dispute in the appeal filed against Ext.P3 was confined to the contention that the meter being a four digit meter, it cannot record the reading as 15,720 and that the only other contention was regarding the rate at which the invoice was raised. 3. I have considered the rival contentions. I have also gone through Ext.P4 appeal and P6 argument notes submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. On going thorough the said documents it is evident that the main issue highlighted by the petitioner in the appeal was centered around the four digit meter. The only other contention was that the energy charges have been levied at higher rates ignoring the tariff in force from time to time. I do not find any contention either in Exts.P4 or P6 to the effect that O.P.NO.20414/98 5 as the Board had issued a provisional invoice card in February, 1997 estimating the monthly consumption of energy as 140 units, the estimate of energy consumption as 315 units per month in Ext.P3 is bad. The petitioner also does not have a case either in Ext.P4 or in Ext.P6 that the readings in the meter were not being taken periodically. The second respondent has in Ext.P7 order considered the said two contentions raised by the petitioner. As regards the contention that a four digit meter cannot justify a five digit reading, the appellate authority had noticed that the meter reading as per the meter reading register (the meter was admittedly changed on 9.10.1992) was as follows: 9/10/92 IR 0005 10/92 315 4/93 7943 11/94 0686 rotation completed 7/96 4269 1/97 5172 6/97 5720 The 2nd respondent has in Ext.P7 further proceeded to state as follows: “From the above reading it is seen that O.P.NO.20414/98 6 reading in 4/93 has been recorded as 7943 units. It is further noticed that in 11/94 the reading is recorded as 0686 with remarks 'rotation competed'. In this initial juncture it is to be convinced myself whether the reading in 4/93 as 7943 units is correct or not. Therefore, I have to analyse the previous reading also. The meter is seen changed on 9/10/92 with initial reading 0005. In that month itself it is recorded as 315 units. Hence, there was a consumption of 310 (315-5) units in the remaining days of 10/92. If there is a consumption of this rate there is every likelihood of reading to become as 7943 units in 4/93. Hence, the reading in 4/93 as 7943 units is absolutely believable. Further it is remarked in he reading for 11/94 as 0686 units, the rotation completed. Hence, the actual reading on 11/94 is 10686 units. Then the reading progressively in 7/96,1/97 and 6/97 are 4269, 5172 and 5720 units respectively”. 4. On perusing Ext.P7 and after hearing the learned standing counsel appearing for the Board, I am inclined to agree with the reasoning of the 2nd respondent in Ext.P7. The petitioner has no case that the meter installed in his premises on 9.10.1992 was faulty or that he had at any point of time brought to the notice of the respondents that the meter was faulty. The petitioner has no case that he was not using electrical energy or that he was not running any business. The only dispute raised by him in Ext.P4 was O.P.NO.20414/98 7 based on the four digit meter. In the light of the explanation offered and the reasoning given by the appellate authority in Ext.P7, I am inclined to accept the contention of the respondents that challenge to Ext.P3 is without any merit. 5. The appellate authority has as regards the 2nd contention of the petitioner granted substantial reliefs by directing that the energy charges for the period from October 1992 to June 1997 should be levied giving credit to the payments already effected by the petitioner and at the ruling rates. It was pursuant to the said direction that Ext.P8 invoice and Ext.P8(a) calculation statement were furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner has no case that the calculation made in Ext.P8(a) is erroneous. In my considered opinion the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P8 or Ext.P8(a) for the reason that they are based on Ext.P7, which I have already upheld. As regards the petitioner's submission that the appellate authority has proceeded on the assumption that the premises was being used for running a foreign liquor shop, even if the said observation is ignored, in the absence of a plea on the side of the petitioner that the meter was faulty, the said observation by itself does not vitiate the findings in Ext.P7. O.P.NO.20414/98 8 6. The last contention raised by the petitioner is that the bill was not issued promptly and that the respondents waited for five years to issue the disputed bill. I am of the opinion that in the absence of any provision either in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy or in the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, obliging the Board to issue adjustment invoices for the energy consumed within a prescribed time limit, the petitioner cannot succeed on that ground as well. A Division Bench of this Court has in Southern India Marine Products Co. v. K.S.E.B. (1995 (2) KLT 167) held that the relationship between the Board and the consumer is governed by the terms and conditions of supply of electrical energy and therefore, there is no question of limitation with reference to the arrears due. This Court also held that if the consumer wants the electricity supply to be continued as per the terms of the Electricity Supply Act, they have to pay for the energy consumed as well as the arrears. This Court further held that the provisions of the Limitation Act will not apply for demanding payment of consumption charges that the Board has failed to collect in time. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the aforesaid decision, I find no merit in the petitioner's contention that as the adjustment invoice was raised belatedly, the O.P.NO.20414/98 9 Board is disabled from enforcing it. In the light of the findings in Ext.P7 the petitioner has an obligation to pay the energy charges demanded in Ext.P8. The petitioner cannot rely on the provisional invoice card issued to him to disown his liability to pay the amount covered by Ext.P8. For the reasons stated above, the original petition fails and it is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as no costs. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl O.P.NO.20414/98 10 P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.NO.20414 OF 1998-E JUDGMENT 1st February, 2008.