IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 14456 of 1999(U) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- INDIRA G., KANNANKULATH, KIZHAKEKADUGALOOR, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALWAYE VEST ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 102. BY ADV. MR.JACOB CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.E.B., ALUVA 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR SECTION K.S.E.B., ALUVA WEST. BY ADV. MR.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB MR.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.23356/1999 IN OP. NO.14456/1999 CLOSED 01.06.2009 SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE CARD ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 20.2.95 TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE INVOICE DT. 1.3.99 FOR RS. 4,1081/- BEFORE THE KERALA ELECTRICITY BOARD. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 14.4.99. R1(a):- STATEMENT SHOWING THE CALCULATION OF THE BILL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- O.P.No.14456 of 1999 - U --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, the owner of a building having electric connection with consumer No.13151, challenges Ext.P2 in this writ petition. Ext.P2 is an adjustment invoice dated 1.3.1999 for Rs.41,081/- issued to the petitioner, being the charge for the average consumption of electrical energy for the period from 20.2.1995 to December,1998. According to the petitioner, the consumption estimated by the respondents is 30 units per month and fixed monthly slab at the rate of Rs.71/- per month. But, according to the petitioner, the meter is defective and therefore, the consumption energy estimated by the respondents is not correct. Hence, petitions were filed before the various authorities. According to the petitioner, she was paying the amount for the monthly slab bill regularly and there was no complaint against her for the non- payment of the electrical energy. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on her observation, it was found that the meter was running while the switches are all off. Thus, according to the petitioner, the meter was changed on 4.2.1999. OP NO. 14456 of 1999 :-2-: Thereafter, Ext.P2 adjustment invoice/disconnection notice was issued. The petitioner submits that Ext.P2 is issued without any basis. In support of the above contention, certain facts are narrated. It is also pointed out that petitioner is running the milk vending business and the electricity charges imposed on the similarly placed milk vendors, running shops within 100 Sq.ft. are very meagre when comparing with the amount demanded from the petitioner. 2. A counter affidavit is filed for and on behalf of the respondents- Electricity Board in which it is stated that the petitioner-consumer will come in LTVIIA commercial tariff with connected load of 1220 Watts and at the time of connection, the provisional invoice card for 30 units per month was issued and there was no defect in the meter and the meter readings were recorded during the month of 6/95,12/95 and 6/96. According to the Board, the readings revealed that the average consumption was 218 units per month from 2/95 to 6/96. During 2/97, it was reported that the meter of the consumer was burnt and the meter was changed with a new meter with initial reading '0'. final reading of the burnt meter was 5168 ad hence the recorded monthly average consumption was 241 units per month from 6/96 OP NO. 14456 of 1999 :-3-: to 4/2/97. It is also stated that the reading recorded in the new meter on 5.2.1999 was 3650 units and in 12/98, the reading was 6730 units and in 6/99, 241 units whereas the burnt meter showed an average of 280 units per month. Thus, according to the Board, the contention of the petitioner that a wrong reading was recorded due to the defective meter is baseless and incorrect. The Board in its counter affidavit also stated that another consumer with No.8500 of the very same section has milk vending business and his monthly average consumption from 3/95 to 97 is 279 units. It is also pointed out by the Board that the petitioner was initially given an invoice card for a monthly consumption of 30 units per month. The slab rate of consumer was revised to 83.80 in February 1997 and Rs.91.80 in February 1998 and Rs.120/- in February,1999 due to tariff revision. Along with the counter affidavit, the Board has filed Ext.R1(a), detailed calculation statement of adjustment invoice issued showing as to how the amount is arrived at. 3. Going by the averments and materials, it can be seen that even after the replacement of the meter, the consumption rate of the petitioner-consumer is substantially increased. Though the burnt meter shown an average of 280 OP NO. 14456 of 1999 :-4-: units per month, the newly established meter shows an average of 241 per month. It is also relevant to note that at the time of effecting the connection, the average unit allotted is 30 units per month. Thus, it can be seen that Ext.P2 adjustment invoice was issued on the basis of the materials collected by the Board authorities and on the basis of the revised tariff rate which is applicable in the case of the petitioner/consumer. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ext.P2 is prepared without any basis and materials. Though the petitioner has challenged Ext.P2, nothing is brought on record to substantiate the contention against Ext.P2. On the other hand, the details furnished by the Board would show that Ext.P2 is prepared in accordance with law, procedure and also on the basis of the materials collected from the spot. In the result, I find no merit in the original petition and the original petition is accordingly dismissed. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ OP NO. 14456 of 1999 :-5-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P.NO. 14456 OF 1999 U -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T DATED: 1-6-2009 OP NO. 14456 of 1999 :-6-: