IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34925 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.O.ANTO, S/O.K.K.OUSEPH, KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, CHURCH NAGAR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KASARAGOD. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL SECTION, KASARAGOD. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, A.P.T.S., K.S.E.B., KASARAGOD. ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 34925 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T On the allegation that on inspection made, of the electrical installations of the petitioner on 25.3.2009, the meter was found recording only 70% of the actual consumption, a demand has been made on the petitioner for arrears of electricity charges for six years. The petitioner is challenging that demand. According to the petitioner, respondents cannot, under law demand six years' arrears of electricity charges, especially when there is no allegation that the petitioner is in any way responsible for the defect in the meter. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) Call for the entire records leading up to Exhibits P1 and P2 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents to reassess the petitioner, in tune with Section 126 of the Electricity Act and Regulation 42 of the K.S.E. Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 and return the amounts or adjust the amounts in future bills, paid by the petitioner, pursuant to Exhibits P5 and P7;” W.P(C) No. 34925 of 2009 -2- 2. The learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity board pointed out that the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of approaching the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under the Electricity Act, 2003. 3. After hearing both sides, I am also of opinion that the petitioner should more appropriately approach the CGRF in the first instance. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the CGRF for the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. In order to enable the petitioner to file a petition before the CGRF and to seek interim orders therein, I direct the respondents to keep proceedings for coercive recovery of the balance installments due, in abeyance for a period of one month including disconnection of electricity supply. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge