IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 7796 of 2007(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.K.ABDUL MAJEED, MANAGER, PALLIKKARA ICE PLANT, CONSUMER NO.3317, PLA, PALLIKKARA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. MAJOR SECTION, CHITHARI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. ASSISTANT ESNGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHITHARI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.7796/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2 DATED 25/11/2005. P2 : COPY OF ORDER NO.APTS/DCE/KDE/AA 51/06/1285 DATED 15/01/2007. P3 : COPY OF CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED 01/03/2007. P4 : COPY OF REVISED INVOICE IN RESPECT OF CONSUMER NO.3317/PLA/IV DATED 01/03/2007. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.7796 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of October, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Manager of “Pallikkara Ice Plant”, an industrial consumer availing of supply of electrical energy with consumer No.3317 under LT IV tariff. 2. On 22/02/2005, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the premises, along with the 4th respondent. At the time of inspection, the petitioner was present. The mahazar prepared, a copy of which made available by the learned standing counsel for the respondent, shows that it was found that four numbers of security seals provided in the meter cover were damaged, the screws provided in the meter nameplate were seen loosened and partially detached, and that the counter fixing screw of the energy meter was also seen loosened. It is also recorded that the petitioner admitted that every month, one Shri.Laly used to visit his premises just before the meter reading date, and used to adjust the meter reading in the reverse direction by adjusting the counter WP(C) No.7796/2007 -2- after opening the meter cover and security seals, and that for every such acts, Shri.Laly was being paid amount varying from Rs.600/- (Rupees six hundred only) to Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). 3. Based on the findings at the time of inspection, a penalty bill was issued to the petitioner under Clause 43 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy demanding a sum of Rs.6,77,108/- (Rupees six lakhs seventy seven thousand one hundred and eight only). That was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.11841/2005, and that writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 07/04/2005 directing the respondents to issue a detailed calculation statement to the petitioner, and to reconnect the supply on the petitioner paying Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). The amount was paid, power supply was restored and the statement was also issued. 4. The statement was again challenged in WP(C) No.27497/2005. By judgment dated 23/09/2005 that writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file his objection to the statement, and further directed that the supply shall not be WP(C) No.7796/2007 -3- disconnected on the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only). Payment was made and the objection filed was considered. But the demand was confirmed. This order was again challenged in WP(C) No.30301/2005. That writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order. Accordingly, Ext.P1 appeal was filed before the 2nd respondent, and the petitioner was also heard on two occasions. Finally, by Ext.P2, finding that this was a clear case of theft of energy, the 2nd respondent reduced the demand to Rs.2,96,115/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety six thousand one hundred and fifteen only). Consequently, a revised calculation statement was issued as per Ext.P3 and a revised invoice was issued demanding the balance amount due, as per Ext.P4 . It was thereupon that this writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P2 to P4. 5. Though submissions were made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner regarding the correctness of the finding of theft of energy, having regard to the facts as stated above, which have also been recorded in the mahazar prepared at the time of inspection, which also carries the signature of the petitioner, I am WP(C) No.7796/2007 -4- not inclined to take a view different from what has been taken in Ext.P2. 6. The learned senior counsel further canvassed for the position that initially, the liability of the petitioner was quantified on the assumption that the unit worked for 18 hours per day, and in Ext.P2 order of the appellate authority, the working hours have been reduced to 17 hours. Counsel submits that the unit is an Ice Plant, and that duration of working hours varies from season to season, and that in the absence of any material, the respondents could not have fixed the working hours as 18 hours or 17 hours for quantifying the dues of the petitioner. 7. First of all, the petitioner has not produced any material to indicate that what exactly is the working hours in his unit. From the submissions made, what is disclosed is that the quantity of Ice manufactured once in a while will be sufficient for a week, and on that basis, it is contended that the Unit does not work on all days. However, the fact remains that even if the manufactured ice is stored, and even for storage purposes, freezers will have to work, which needs consumption of energy as well. If that be so, the Unit WP(C) No.7796/2007 -5- will be consuming energy round the clock and if so, the estimation done adopting 17 hours as the working hours cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference. In the aforesaid circumstances, I cannot accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg