IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16665 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYARAJ,ROSE COTTAGE,SETTLEMENT COLONY, MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,ELECTRICAL SECTION, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHITHIRAPURAM,PIN-685565,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION,THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHITHIRAPURAM,PIN-685565,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KSEB,ADIMALI. 5. ANTI POWER THEFT SQUARD REP BY ITS DEPUT CHIEF ENGINEER,KSEB,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,(R.R),TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.16665 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P1 invoice, final order if any passed pursuant thereto, Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 revenue recovery notices and Ext.P7 communication. He also challenge certain provisions of the Kerala Electricity Board Terms and Conditions. 2. Facts pleaded by the petitioner are that, he was availing of supply of energy of electricity with Consumer No.3492. It is stated that while so Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected his premises on 4th February, 2008 and issued a mahazar. It is stated that in the Mahazar unauthorized additional load was found and that he was issued Ext.P1 bill demanding Rs.1,84,118/-.Petitioner contends that to Ext.P1 he filed an objection. The claim in the writ petition is that the copy of Mahazar given to him WP(c).No.16665/09 2 was not legible. The objections said to have been filed against Ext.P1 also has not been produced. It is stated that he moved the Adalat, which resulted in Ext.P3 and that thereafter Exts.P4 and P5 revenue recovery notices were issued. At this stage, complaining that the order passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 was not communicated, he submitted Ext.P6. To Ext.P6, he was issued Ext.P7 informing that final order passed in the appeal was sent to him and the same was returned as unclaimed. 3. In the writ petition, petitioner avers that, he was availing of power supply and in the APTS inspection unauthorized and additional load was found and that the final order on the appeal has not been communicated to him. 4. The case was adjourned for the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. Today the Standing Counsel has produced before me the Mahazar prepared at the time of inspection on 4th April, 2008. In the mahazar it is stated that, on account of the default committed by the petitioner in remitting the WP(c).No.16665/09 3 electricity charges, supply to his premises was remaining disconnected. However, petitioner had made unauthorized connection to the main line and was abstracting energy. A reading of the Mahazar also shows that several portions of the house of the petitioner were let out on rent and to all those places, petitioner had installed his own meter to record the energy consumed by the tenants. Therefore, the averment in the writ petition that on the APTS inspection what was found was additional load is factually wrong. That apart the non-production of the mahazar on the ground that the copy served was not legible also is suspicious. In any case, since the petitioner has made wrong factual statements before this court, I do not think that the petitioner should be shown any indulgence. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.16665/09 4