IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3289 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.VASANTH CLOTH STORES, KOZHINJAMPARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR C. HARIDAS. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K. ROBIN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SETION, KOSHIJAMPARA. 4. ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PALAKKAD UNIT, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J ======================= W.P.(C).No.3289 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board. 2. The premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Anti Power Theft Squad leading to disconnection and a demand for payment. While it is the assertion of the petitioner that the premises is a small shop with a connected load of 2KW and average bimonthly consumption is only about 250 units, as seen from Ext.P1 series, the apparent allegation against the petitioner is that the seal of the meter was broken and the meter has been tampered with. It is the assertion of the petitioner that there was no independent witness and neither the petitioner nor of the Village Officer attested the mahazer. From the material placed on record now, it is quite clear that bills were issued for consecutive months for quite sometime on the basis of the W.P.(C).No.3289/2008 2 reading reflected in Ext.P1 series. If that be so, did not the readings then reflect any theft? If it were so, are the officials of the board totally innocent in the matter of aiding the petitioner for the commission now alleged against him? 3. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that supply of energy to the premises of the petitioner needs to be restored on such terms as may be proper. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of without expressing anything on merit, however directing that if the petitioner remits 1/3rd of the impugned demand and pays reconnection charges, supply of energy shall be resumed and petitioner's objection to the impugned demand shall be considered after serving on him a copy of the mahazer. If the decision on his objections are adverse to his interest, reasons shall be stated since the petitioner would then have a remedy by way of an appeal. It is further directed that the remittance being W.P.(C).No.3289/2008 3 made on the basis of this judgment including the reconnection fee will stand regulated by such decision as may be taken on the objections of the petitioner. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dvs