IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 3682 of 2009(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SUSHEELA,AGED 70 YRS, W/O.LATE SAMIKUTTY, KEEZHUR KADAPPURAM, CHANDRAGIRI POST,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,KSEB,ELECTRICAL SECTION,UDMA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KASARAGOD. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KASARAGOD. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,CHANDRAGIRI VILLAGE, CHANDRAGIRI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.3682 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT It is stated that the petitioner was running a petty shop where electricity was being supplied with consumer No.3418 under LT-VII B tariff. In this writ petition she is aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P5, by which, current charges for the period up to 31.3.2007 along with interest and other charges were sought to be realized. 2. Going by the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the power supply to the premises in question was disconnected on 18.5.1996 and the equipments were also dismantled in April, 2002. However, current charges were demanded for the period up to 31.12.2002. In my view this is clearly erroneous. Going by clause 30(4) of the Conditional Supply of Electric Energy framed by the Board previous of the WP(c).NO.3682/09 2 Electricity Supply Act, 1948 dismantling ought to have been done within 6 months from the date of disconnection of the power supply. Disconnection of power supply in this case was on 18.5.1996. Therefore the dismantling ought to have been done on or before 17.11.1996. If so, the liability of the petitioner to pay energy charges, could not have gone beyond 17.5.1996. Admittedly the present demand includes demand for energy charges up to 31.12.2002 and that cannot be sustained. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 3. Exts.P1 and P5 will stand set aside. The respondents shall quantify the energy charges which is due from the petitioner for the period up to 17.11.1996 along with interest as admissible under the Conditions of the Conditional Supply of Electric Energy. Once the amount is quantified as above, Rs.23,303/- realized from the petitioner by revenue recover proceedings shall be adjusted and the balance if any can be realized from the petitioner in WP(c).NO.3682/09 3 accordance with law. Needless to say that, if the payments already made by the petitioner is in excess of what is actually due, the amount will be refunded to the petitioner immediately thereafter. 4. Now that Exts.P1 and P5 are set aside, necessarily the recovery proceedings for realizing the amount due under the aforesaid two accounts will also stand set aside. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before respondents 1 and 4 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).NO.3682/09 4