IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 OP.No. 25702 of 2000(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THE KADUTHURUTHY REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.4061, KADUTHURUTHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.AVIRAH, SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM, SRI.NAVIA SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUDI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, THALAYOLAPARAMBU. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KADUTHURUTHY. R1 TO R3 BY ADV SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 25702/2000-I ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.43271/2000 IN O.P. NO. 25702/2000 DISMISSED 01/06/2010. SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P. No.25702 of 2000 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P7 adjustment invoice issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board on 11.8.2000 demanding payment of the sum of Rs.1,62,011/- towards energy charges and surcharge for the period from June 1994 to July 2000 is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank and a consumer of electrical energy. It was periodically paying the energy charges as per the provisional invoice card issued by the respondents. While matters stood thus, an adjustment invoice dated 20.3.1999 was issued demanding payment of the sum of Rs.14,206/- as energy charges for the period from 7/94 to 1/99 wherein it was claimed that during the said period, the petitioner had consumed 7681/55 units of electrical energy. Aggrieved by the said invoice, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 representation dated 9.4.1988 before the second respondent, raising various contentions. When no reply was forthcoming, the petitioner sent Ext.P2 letter dated 7.6.2000 enclosing a copy of Ext.P1 representation. To that letter, the second respondent sent Ext.P3 reply dated 26.6.2000, wherein it was stated that the invoice issued on 20.3.1999 was in respect of energy consumed by the petitioner. O.P. No.25702 of 2000 2 The petitioner was also informed that a sum of Rs.30/- was demanded in excess and that the petitioner need pay the bill only after deducting that amount within one week. Along with Ext.P3 letter, Ext.P4 computation statement was also enclosed as per which the petitioner was liable to pay the sum of Rs.21,593/- towards energy charges demanded in the invoice including a surcharge of Rs.4533/-. In Ext.P4 statement, energy charges for the period from January 1999 to July 2000 (Rs.2784/-) was also levied. The petitioner thereupon sent Ext.P5 letter dated 2.7.2000 contending that as the petitioner was not responsible for the delayed remittance of energy charges, payment of surcharge may be dispensed with. This was followed by Ext.P6 letter dated 18.8.2000. While the matters stood thus, Ext.P7 invoice was issued on 11.8.2000 demanding payment of the sum of Rs.1,62,011/- towards energy charges for the period from June 1994 to July 2000. 3. Though this writ petition was admitted on 5.9.2000, till date, the respondents have not filed a counter affidavit. It is evident from the averments in the writ petition and the materials on record including Ext.P4 computation statement, that the total amount demanded from the petitioner by way of energy charges and O.P. No.25702 of 2000 3 surcharge for the period from July 1994 to July 2000 was only Rs.21,593/-. But in the impugned invoice which relates to the period from June 1994 to July 2000, the demand by way of energy charges alone is Rs.1,62,011/-. In the light of the computation made in Ext.P4 which was based on the meter reading, atleast for the period up to January, 1999, in the absence any case for the respondents that the meter was faulty (in which case the Electrical Inspector alone could have decided the dispute) and as the respondents have not set out the basis on which energy charges is levied in Ext.P7, I am of the opinion that the demand made in Ext.P7 invoice cannot be sustained. Ext.P7 invoice discloses that the initial meter reading was 3702 units. The meter reading was admittedly taken in June 1994 and January 1999. Thereupon, an adjustment invoice was issued on 20.3.1999 demanding payment of Rs.14,206/- as energy charges. If that be so, how and on what basis Ext.P7 invoice was raised and issued demanding energy charges covering the said period, viz., June 1994 to January 1999, and for the period thereafter upto July 2000. As stated above, though more than 10 years and 5 months have passed after the writ petition was filed, the Board has not chosen to file a counter affidavit. In view of the admitted fact that the Board had O.P. No.25702 of 2000 4 earlier issued an invoice demanding payment of Rs.14,206 as energy charges for the period from July 1994 to January, 1999, the demand made in Ext.P7 cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition and quash Ext.P7 order. Needless to say, the petitioner will be liable to pay the amount demanded in the invoice dated 20.3.1999 with interest at the applicable rates. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P.No.25702 of 2000 J U D G M E N T Dated: 17th March, 2011 -------------------------------