IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18105 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MATHEW CHERIAN, NATIONAL HOUSE, MANORAMA JUNCTION, S.A.ROAD, KOCHI-682 016. BY ADV. MR. JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, GIRINAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SISTRIBUTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 3. SRI.ANTONLY JOSEPH, METER READER, KSEB SECTION OFFICE, GIRINAGAR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 18105 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 12th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Exts. P1 and P4 notices, threatening the petitioner of dire consequences, if the 'meter' now installed in some 'nilavara' is not caused to be taken out and planted at some conspicuous place, with free access to the officers of the Board to effect the meter reading; lest it should attract further consequences, including penal liability to effect double the amount of actual meter charges. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he has constructed a building and has availed electricity connection through 'under ground cable' and that the meter has been installed at such appropriate place, where the underground cable converges at the point from where it is taken out to the distribution system. It is conceded that such meter is located, at a place below the ground level. But, according to the petitioner, the connection was taken after incurring much expenses, effecting flooring by laying tiles, and there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for directing the meter to be taken out, obviously for the reason that the connection was taken way back in the year 1997 and for the past 10 years there was no whisper of any objection in any manner. W.P. (C) No. 18105 of 2010 : 2 : 3. The reason as put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, after assuming the charge of meter reader by the 3rd respondent, there occurred some hot exchange of words between the petitioner and third respondent, since the 3rd respondent chose to throw the bills somewhere of his choice, without handing it over to the consumer or keeping it at the appropriate place near the meter, which was questioned the petitioner. Thereafter, the third respondent made a complaint before the concerned Assistant Engineer, on wrong and unsustainable grounds, causing issuance of Ext.P1 notice, whereby the petitioner was instructed to shift the meter, failing which, double the actual bill amount was proposed to be realised, referring to clauses 13 (2) i, 33 (2), 58 (v) d of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. 4. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 statement of objections, pointing out the actual facts and circumstances and the Assistant Engineer was even welcomed to have a site inspection, in order to satisfy the fact that absolutely no obstruction was being caused from the part of the petitioner and the meter was free access from out side and room was never under lock and key, also pointing out that the premises are always open with a stair case and sufficient light. It is the case of the petitioner that, in spite of filing Ext.P2 objection in October, 2009, no order whatsoever was passed W.P. (C) No. 18105 of 2010 : 3 : thereon. Thereafter, yet another notice in similar lines was issued on 29.3.2010, as borne by Ext.P4, raising similar demand and threatening of dire consequence as stipulated in Ext.P1. On receipt of Ext.P4, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 representation dated 30.3.2010 before the second respondent/Chief Engineer. During pendency of Ext.P5, the petitioner was served with Ext.P6 bill, demanding a total sum of Rs.21,154/-, which according to the petitioner is per se wrong and illegal, as the actual amount due from the petitioner is only Rs. 10577/- while the demand has been raised by 'doubling' the figures; thus giving effect to the threat contained in Ext. P4 notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the reference made to the concerned clauses of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 is not correct or sustainable. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Boards submits, with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed and the documents produced as Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) that, the meter has been installed in such way, that it causes much hardships to have free access to read the meter. Reliance is also placed on Ext. R1 (a), which is a copy of the meter reading statement in support of the above contentions, showing that, the concerned employee of the Board was not having free access for taking the meter reading. W.P. (C) No. 18105 of 2010 : 4 : 6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, by virtue of the mandate under Rule 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, the inaction on the part of the petitioner in not causing the meter to be shifted to the proper place with sufficient access is an infringement of the statutory prescription and is liable to be acted upon at the hands of the respondents, in accordance with law. It is also stated that, at the time of original installation, the meter was kept in the open cellar and by virtue of the modification effected by the petitioner in the meanwhile, it has now become very difficult to have free access to read the meter, to ascertain the power consumption. 7. With regard to the alleged threat contained in Ext.P4, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 13 (2) (i) is applicable only with respect to the meter purchased by the consumer, which has no application to the case in hand. Regulation 33 (2) is have the application only if the meter is not reading or if any malfunction is there, which is also not attracted to the case in hand. Like wise, Regulation 55 (v) (d) can have the application only if the consumer fails to get the faulty or sluggish meter replaced, which also is not the position in the present case. This being the position, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the reference made to the relevant provisions of law is quite wrong and misconceived and for this W.P. (C) No. 18105 of 2010 : 5 : reason Exts. P1 and P4 cannot have any valid existence in the eye of law. Simultaneously, the learned counsel also submits that, there is absolutely no provision to charge 'double the amount' by way of penalization, for non shifting of the meter, as now imposed upon the petitioner, by virtue of Ext.P6. 8. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the idea and understanding of the respondents with regard to reasons referred to in issuance of Exts. P1 and P4, penalizing the petitioner by doubling the actual bill amount is not sustainable. Accordingly Ext. P6 impugned Bill/order is set aside, however making it clear that, the respondents are free to realize only the actual amount, which is stated as satisfied by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order dated 11.2.2010 passed by this Court. 9. With regard to the remaining aspect i.e. Instructions given by the Board to shift the meter, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, pursuant to Ext.P5 representation preferred before the second respondent, the matter was caused to be enquired into by the Assistant Engineer, whereupon it has been reported that, the meter is located in the underground room ('nilavara') with wooden door and that entry to this room can be made only through a wooden ladder with insufficient W.P. (C) No. 18105 of 2010 : 6 : height for smooth entry. The location is stated as very inconvenient and that the energy meter needs to be shifted as per the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, particularly with reference to Rule 8. Regarding the shifting of the meter, it is rather a matter of 'fact verification' and this Court does not propose to go into any fact adjudicating exercise. Going by the materials on record, it is revealed that, the meter now located is not at a convenient and conspicuous place, with free access, to effect the meter reading and to raise necessary bills. 10. In the said circumstances, it is open for the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps to cause the meter to be shifted to appropriate place, if the petitioner fails to effect the necessary change 'suo motu', to such proper place with the intervention of the respondents pointing out such other suitable/appropriate/feasible place for installation of the meter. If the petitioner fails to point out any alternate/suitable location within two weeks, appropriate arrangements could be caused to be effected by the respondents, to have the meter shifted, without causing any damage to the building of the petitioner. It will be open for the respondents 1 to 4 to cause meter to be placed at such other appropriate place including by way of taking coercive steps with regard to distribution of power supply, if the petitioner fails to give W.P. (C) No. 18105 of 2010 : 7 : effect to this verdict. 11. Taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to cause the meter to be shifted to such other appropriate place without causing any damage to the building or constructions of the petitioner at the cost of the petitioner. The shifting as above is ordered only with respect to the meter and not with regard to the 'fuse'. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd