IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6152 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- M.A.MOHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABDUL KAREEM, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PULICKEEL TEXTORIUM, PRIVATE BUS STAND ROAD, ERATTUPETTA, NOW RESIDING AT PULICKEEL HOUSE, NADAKKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. K.S.E.B., REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PALA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, ERATTUPETTA. BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 6152 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT After several rounds of litigation, the claim of the Board against the petitioner on account of short assessment based on unauthorised connected load referable to a period from December 1997 to July 2000 is Rs.3,63,603/-. If the petitioner has any grievance rejecting the fixation of such amount, that needs to be resolved by technical personnel and the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. But, a larger question that arises is as to who would be responsible for any interest that has been lost in terms of the statutes, on the said amount, from some time in 2000 to 2008 or even on amounts due in 1997. Fixation of such amounts on the ground of short assessment cannot be expected unless there are materials to show that there was short assessment while bills were issued and amounts collected, from 1997 to 2000. Why was that such short assessment, if any, was not brought to notice of the higher officials and demands raised then and there? If the rate of interest chargeable by the KSEB is 24%, going by the statute, WPC No. 6152 OF 2008 2 who will be responsible for that loss of interest to the Board? Obviously, no such interest can be claimed against the petitioner nor has it been claimed. But, the fact remains that the Board will lose such interest, if the impugned demand is sustainable. If the demand is correct or even if a portion is sustainable, the extraction of energy which lead to the short assessment could not have been achieved without the able assistance and connivance of the concerned officials of the Board. This is an irresistible view apparent on the facts. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is relegated to the CGRF to raise a complaint regarding the impugned demand and if the decision of the CGRF is against the petitioner, a copy of that decision will be communicated by the CGRF to the Secretary of the Board, who will initiate necessary action to consider whether culpability on the part of any official of the Board needs to be looked into in accordance with law. To enable the petitioner to move CGRF and seek interim relief. It is directed that any WPC No. 6152 OF 2008 3 recovery on the basis of impugned demand will stand suspended by three weeks from the date of issue of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 6152 OF 2008 4