IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 4663 of 2003(E) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.VIJAYAPPA KURUP, ALUNKAL, MARARIKKULAM NORTH, ALEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MAJOR SECTION, S.L. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, -DO- -DO-. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO R5 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON 08/04/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 4663/03. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.16.6.02. P2. COPY OF THE BILLS. P3. -DO- P4. -DO- P5. -DO- P6. -DO- P7 -DO- P8. -DO- P9. -DO- P10. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.26.11.02. P10.A. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.10.12.02. P11. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.1.1.02 BY R5. P12. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.13.1.02 BY R4. P13. COPY OF THE BILL. P14. -DO- P15. -DO- P16. -DO- P17. -DO- P18. -DO- P19. -DO- P20. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.21.1.04 BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE. P21. COPY OF THE BILL DTD.15.1.03. P22. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.31.1.03 TO R1. P23. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.30.1.03 TO R3. P24. COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.9.11.02. P25. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.15.2.03. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R4A. COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.10.12.02. B. COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE BY DY.CHIEF ENGINEER, CHAIRMAN OF THE ADALATH. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 4663 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity from the Kerala State Electricity Board. He uses electricity for running his flour mill. The flour mill is being run for the past 30 years. According to the petitioner, for running the mill, he is using 22 HP motor. The petitioner would contend that as per the agreement executed between the petitioner and the Electricity Board, the authorised load was also 22 HP. The petitioner filed an application on 22.5.2002 to reduce the authorised load to 12 HP. Despite the petitioner having complied with all the formalities stipulated for the purpose, orders reducing the authorised load to 12 HP were not issued. When the petitioner contacted the concerned Assistant Engineer he allegedly told the petitioner that the petitioner's application is misplaced and he should file another one. The petitioner submits that he filed another application on 29.10.2002. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was receiving electricity bills for the connected load of 22 KW. The petitioner would contend that from July, 2002 the mill itself was closed. By communication dated 1.1.2003, the concerned Assistant Engineer informed the petitioner that the authorised load of the petitioner is 9.4 KW. However, the petitioner was served with Exts.P2 to P9, P13 to P19 and P21 bills, wherein the o.p.4663/03 2 petitioner has been directed to pay electricity charges for 22 KW. The petitioner's representation in this regard has not been answered. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioner filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to levy electrical charges to the petitioner (Consumer No.329) in terms [sic] the connected load of 22 H.P. from the date of granting connection up to May 2002 and thereafter levy charges at the connected load of 12 H.P. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondents to quantify the amounts from the date of granting connection and thereafter direct the respondents to refund the excess amount paid by the petitioner. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondents not to levy fixed a [sic] charges at the rate of Rs.1188/- from June 2002 onwards. (iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondents to restore the power connection to the petitioner's premises (Consumer No.329). (v) Call for records leading to Ext.P12 and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order. (vi) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P22 and the 3rd respondent to dispose of Ext.P23. (vii) Issue an interim direction [sic] the respondents to restore the power connection to the petitioner's premises (Consumer No.329).” 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board would submit that the Electricity Board never describes authorised load or connected load in terms of HP. Even as per the form of agreement prescribed in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, the connected load is mentioned in terms of KW/KVA. But, o.p.4663/03 3 unfortunately the agreement executed by the petitioner with the Board is not traceable. However, the KSEB would assert that the authorised load of the petitioner before reducing the same to 9.4 KW was 22 KW. The contention of the Board is that the consumer is liable to pay for the authorized load till the electrical installation is dismantled. According to the counsel for the Board, the electricity supply was disconnected on 29.6.2002 and the installation was dismantled on 3.2.2003. With these contentions, the counsel for the Board supports the bills. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. No document has been produced either by the petitioner or by the Board to show what was the actual authorised load of the petitioner as per the agreement executed between the two. The petitioner insists that it is 22 HP whereas, the Board insists that it is 22 KW. At least on the figure there is no dispute. The difference is regarding whether it is HP or KW. This Court has, while dealing with cases relating to authorised or connected load, never come across any document describing authorised or connected load in terms of HP. It was always in KW or KVA. In fact in form No.7 prescribed in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, the connected load is mentioned in terms of KW/KVA. Normally HP is used to describe the capacity of machines. In so far as the petitioner and the Board both agree on the figure 22, I am inclined to accept the contention of the o.p.4663/03 4 Board that the authorised load of the petitioner was 22 KW. But admittedly the petitioner applied for reducing the connected load to 9.4 KW in June 2002. Of course, the counsel for the Board would dispute it. But I find that the petitioner had been repeatedly stating so in many representations submitted by the petitioner before the Board, two of which are Exts.P22 and P23, in which he has specifically and categorically stated that he first filed his application on 8.6.2002 and as per the directions of the Board, he filed another representation on 10.6.2002. Thereafter, he was given a prescribed booklet on 14.6.2002 bearing No.V-56913, Serial No. being 194. He submitted the same. But when he again contacted the Assistant Engineer in July, 2002, the petitioner was told that his application is not traceable, pursuant to which, he filed fresh application on 29.10.2002. The receipt of the said application is not disputed. But at the same time, it is a fact that despite specific averment in the original petition in that regard, there is no denial of the same except that they have not received the application. I also find that the Board has never cared to reply to Exts.P22 and P23, which contain the specific averments regarding submission of the application. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that he had in fact filed the application in June 2002. Therefore, I am inclined to give the petitioner relief in respect of the same on the assumption that the o.p.4663/03 5 petitioner's authorised load was reduced to 9.4 KW from July, 2002. In the above circumstances, this original petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner would be liable to pay fixed charges for 22 KW till June 2002. From June, 2002 till February 2003, the petitioner would be liable to pay fixed charges for 9.4 KW. Revised bills calculating the electricity charges at the above rate shall be served on the petitioner. The petitioner shall pay the same within two weeks of receipt of the same. Needless to say, payments made pursuant to the interim orders in this case shall be duly adjusted. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 4663 of 2003-E ================== J U D G M E N T 8th April, 2009