IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31341 of 2003(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. LATE P. MOHANDAS, "LAKSMY", MALMAL COLONY, KATTUSSERRY AMSOM, ALTHUR TALUK. 2. ANEESH, S/O. VIJAYALAKSHMY, -DO- -DO- 3. ANJU, D/O. VIJAYALAKSHMY, -DO- AGED 15, MINOR, (THE PETITIONER NO. 3 IS REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, PETITIONER NO.I). BY ADVS. MR.SAJAN VARGHEESE K, MR.LIJU. M.P. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUT BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DIST. 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION, KSEB, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), ALATHUR. R1 TO R3 BY MR. C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31341/2003-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE FORM 10 NOTICE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE FORM 1 NOTICE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 17/07/02 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DT. 09/04/03 PASSED IN O.P. 12033/03. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11.07.03 PASSED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.31341 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against the proceedings culminating in Exts.P1 & P2 revenue recovery notices that were issued to the petitioners. 2. The 1st petitioner’s deceased husband Mr.Mohan Das owned a shopping complex to which supply of electricity was made to each of its rooms with separate meters. From the records it would appear that supply was made to 12 such consumer numbers. Out of the same, what is relevant for the purpose of this case is consumer No.2919. 3. By Exts.P1 & P2 revenue recovery notices, Rs.35,012/- was demanded towards fixed charges for the period from February, 1997 to May, 2001. That was challenged by the petitioners in appeal resulting in Ext.P5 order rejecting the appeal. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed. 4. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in February, 1997, the power supply was WP(C) No.31341/2003 -2- disconnected, and that, going by Clause 34 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, the Board ought to have dismantled the connection within six months thereafter. It is stated that if the Board had dismantled the connection in time the liability of the petitioners would have been only for a period of six months from February, 1997, and for that reason the demand made by Exts.P1 & P2 for the period up to May, 2001 is illegal. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, in which they are justifying the demand. According to them, they had not received any request from the petitioners for disconnection of power supply from February, 1997. It is stated that the connection was dismantled only in May, 2001 and therefore, the impugned demand is legal. 6. However, a reading of Ext.P5 appellate order shows that current charges as well as fixed charges for the period from February, 1997 to August 1998 was realized from the petitioners, and thereafter fixed charges alone was demanded from September, 1998 to May, 2001. This necessarily will indicate that there was no supply of energy after September, 1998, and this could have happened only because the power supply must have been disconnected at least in September, 1998. Once the fact that the WP(C) No.31341/2003 -3- power supply was disconnected in September, 1998 is accepted, as per Clause 34 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, the connection ought to have been dismantled within six months thereafter, and if so, the liability of the petitioners for fixed charges can extend only for a period of six months from September, 1998. If so, the demand in Exts.P1 & P2 as confirmed in Ext.P5 for fixed charges for the period up to May, 2001 cannot be sustained. 7. For the above reason, Exts.P1, P2 & P5 will stand set aside. It is declared that the liability of the petitioners for fixed charges will be only for a period of six months from September, 1998, and it will be open to the respondents to revise the demand and claim payment of the aforesaid amount from the petitioners. It is made clear that on such quantification, Rs.10,000/- paid by the petitioners in pursuance to the order dated 07/10/2003 in this writ petition shall be appropriated and if the amount paid is in excess of the amount due, such amount shall be adjusted towards the petitioners’ future bills in respect to other connections. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg