IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 24314 of 2006(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SOLVE PLASTIC PRODUCTS PVT.LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PUNALUR-691 333, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PUNALUR. 4. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, DISTRICT OFFICE, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, KOLLAM. 5. THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, METER TESTING AND STANDARDS LABORATORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24314/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14/01/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO R5. P2 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1-1765/03/CEI DATED 02/04/2003 ISSUED BY R5 TO R3. P3(a) : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASST. ENGINEER, KSEB, PUNALUR LETTER NO.SPPL/KSEB/149/2004 DATED 02/06/2004. P3(b) : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASST. ENGINEER, KSEB, PUNALUR LETTER NO.SPPL/KSEB/270/2004 DATED 23/07/2004. P3(c) : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASST. ENGINEER, KSEB, PUNALUR LETTER NO.SPPL/KSEB/643/2004 DATED 04/01/2005. P4 : COPY OF the PRECISION TESTING REPORT DATED 07/07/2003 OF R3. P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/12/2005 ISSUED BY R5 TO THE PETITIONER. P6 : COPY OF the PROVISIONAL BILL DATED 05/12/2005 ISSUED BY R5 TO THE PETITIONER FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,22,136/-. P7 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/12/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE R5. P8 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/03/2006 IN WPC NO.6712/2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P9 : COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 08/05/2006 PASSED BY R3. P10 : COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY the PETITIONER BEFORE R2 AGAINST EXT.P9 ORDER OF R3. P11 : COPY OF the ORDER NO.GB2/COURT/06-07/316 DATED 30/06/2006 PASSED BY R2. P12 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/07/2006 IN WPC NO.18141/2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P13 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/08/2006 SUBMITTED BYT HEPETITIOENR BEFORE R2. P14 : COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL BEFORE R2 ON 19/08/2006. WPC NO.24314/2006 P15 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GB2/SOLVE PLASTICS/06- 07/626/DT./KOTTARAKKARA/29/08/2006 PASSED BY R2. P16 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT REGARDING METER READINGS CONSUMER NUMBER 14261 AND CONSUMER NO.10155 PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER. P17 : COPY OF the JUDGMENT DATED 23/11/2007. P18 : COPY OF LETTER NO.1193/2006/EIQ DATED 19/02/2007 ISSUED BY R4 TO R5 ENCLOSING THE TEST REPORT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.24314 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P9 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is an High Tension consumer. They have been complaining that the meter installed in their premises is faulty. Finally, the meter was inspected. Ext.P4 report indicates that two CTs of the meter were not functioning, resulting in only 1/3rd of the consumption being recorded. Following that, by Exts.P5 & P6, an amount of Rs.13,22,136/- was demanded from the petitioner, and that was objected by filing Ext.P7. The petitioner, thereafter approached this Court and this Court, disposed of the writ petition by Ext.P8 judgment, where it was also directed that in pursuance to Ext.P2 order of the Chief Electrical Inspector, the meter together with the CTs shall be sent for precision test by the Electrical Inspector. A conditional order of stay was also granted, which was complied with. 3. In pursuance to the judgment, the meter was sent for precision test. But, however, without waiting for the report, By WP(C) No.24314/2006 -2- Ext.P9, the 3rd respondent rejected Ext.P7 representation and confirmed Ext.P6. Appeal filed as per Ext.P10 before the 2nd respondent also was rejected as per Ext.P11. It is in this background, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Irrespective of the factual controversies, that are raised, I feel that the dispute lies in a narrow compass. As can be seen from both Ext.P4 report and Ext.P18 precision test report, which was obtained in pursuance to the directions in Exts.P2 & P8, two CTs of the meter were not working. If so, the further question is regarding the manner in which the energy consumed is to be quantified. Provision has been made for this purpose in Clause 42 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 2005, where Clause 42(2) provides that in the event of the test undertaken shows the meter to be incorrect, the period during which the meter shall be deemed to be incorrect, and the energy supplied to the consumer during the said period, shall be decided by the Electrical Inspector. It was in spite of this provision, that in Exts.P5 & P6, the 3rd respondent quantified the period during which the meter was faulty and the energy consumed and levied charges on the petitioner. This procedure adopted is clearly erroneous and Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. WP(C) No.24314/2006 -3- 5. Consequently, Exts.P9 & P15, confirming Ext.P6, are also erroneous. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of quashing Exts.P5, P6, P9 & P15 and directing the 4th respondent to quantify the period during which the meter in question was faulty and the energy consumed during the said period in terms of Clause 42 of the Conditions of Supply, 2005. This the 4th respondent shall do with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. 6. Once the liability is quantified as above, the amount of Rs.6,61,068/- deposited by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment, and Rs.2 lakhs deposited pursuant to interim order dated 13/09/2006 in this writ petition, shall be appropriated towards the said liability and if any excess amount is needed, the petitioner will be called upon to pay the same. On the other hand, if the payment made is in excess of the liability quantified, the excess amount available will be adjusted towards his future bills. 7. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 4th respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg