IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1337 of 2008(W) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.10490/1999 Dated 24/07/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- JOY JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, P.J.ICE PLANT, SAKTHIKULANGARA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI POWER THEFT SQUARD, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KERALA STATE ELETRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KAVANADU,KOLLAM. 4. JUNIOR ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION,SAKTHIKULANGARA, KAVANADU, KOLLAM. BY SC SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- R.P.NO. 1337/2008 IN O.P. NO. 10490 OF 1998 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Review Petition is filed by the petitioner in the O.P. pointing out that in the appellate order impugned in the O.P. there was enhancement of demand from Rs. 65,000/- to Rs. 1.6 lakhs without notice. It is seen from the facts stated in the judgment that respondents' case is that review petitioner enjoyed unauthorised additional load and the disputed bill pertains to electricity extracted by the petitioner without getting it recorded in the meter. Admittedly inspection team found that the meter was tampered with. Review petitioner has a specific case that meter was opened by Junior Engineer of KSEB and he left it in that condition and it is not the petitioner who opened the meter. Standing counsel for KSEB opposed stating that even if it was done by any official, it is unauthorised and probably with the connivance of the petitioner and therefore it calls for enquiry. In any case I find that as against disputed demand of Rs. 65,000/- which was 2 subject matter of appeal, the appellate authority enhanced the demand in the course of disposal of appeal by around Rs. 1 lakh by making the demand to Rs. 1.6 lakhs. In an appeal filed by the party against a bill, no enhancement can be made by the appellate authority without issuing notice containing proposal and without hearing the aggrieved party. The appellate authority probably has authority to enhance the demand. But this should be done only after notice to the party and after hearing party's objections on the proposal for enhancement. However, in this case, I feel review petition should be allowed only on condition because petitioner's case will stand only if it is proved that the meter was opened and left in the same condition by an official of the KSEB which is a matter to be enquired into. In the circumstances, Review Petition is allowed vacating the judgment and restoring the O.P. on condition of petitioner remitting balance of original demand of Rs. 25,000/- towards contested demand within one month from now. However, if payment is not made review petition will stand dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3