IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16848 of 2003(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JACOB MATHEW M., SAKUDA MALLIK & ASSOCIATES, E-6, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 001. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION. 2. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, THRISSUR. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.K.A.SREEJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16848 of 2003(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.09.2002 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04.10.2002. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 29165/2002 DATED 08.10.2002. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FURNISHED TO THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.11.2002 ALONG WITH THE RESPONDENTS ACCEPT ING THE REPRESENTATION. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPIES OF THE ELECTRICITY BILLS DATED 02.09.2002 30.10.02, 27.12.02, 27.02.2003 & 02.05.2003. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st May , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is a consumer of electricity being distributed by the respondents as a licensee in the area in Thrissur, has come up before this Court with the following prayers: “i) Call for the records and; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents to reconnect the electricity connection to the petitioner's shop No.25/699 with consumer No. 7445-C forthwith and ; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ , order or direction, directing the respondents to furnish the index meter reading of consumer No.7445-C for the period from 4/91 to 1/2001 and further direction to keep in abeyance all other coercive steps.” 2. The case projected in the Writ Petition is that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for having issued Ext.P1 bill dated W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003 2 16.09.2002 demanding to satisfy a huge amount stated as arrears of energy charges till March, 2001, lest coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner. 3. The sequence of events as described in the Writ Petition shows that on receipt of Ext. P1, the petitioner, who is conducting a shop dealing with selling Greeting Cards, sent Ext.P2 representation seeking for details/clarification to sustain Ext.P1. Because of coercive steps, the petitioner was also constrained to approach this Court along with a similarly situated person by filing O.P. 29165 of 2002, which was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment passed on 08.10.2002 directing the respondents to consider the representations preferred by the petitioners in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders, simultaneously intercepting the coercive proceedings till such time . Pursuant to Ext. P3 judgment, Ext.P4 statement was supplied to the petitioner showing the amounts due from the petitioner for different periods from April 1991 to March 2001, however without giving the index of the meter reading and also the corresponding rates of energy W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003 3 charges payable at the relevant time. This made the petitioner to file a further representation as borne by Ext.P5 referring to the actual facts and figures . In the meanwhile, the power was disconnected, which hence was sought to be remedied by filing this Writ Petition. It is stated from the part of the petitioner that pursuant to the interim order, the power was restored and that the petitioner is enjoying the same. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit seeking to sustain the figures and action pursued by them. It is stated in the counter affidavit that an arrear bill had already been issued to the petitioner, which however was not honoured by him and it was in the said circumstance, that the entire outstanding liability was sought to be cleared by issuing Ext.P1. But for the averments in the said counter affidavit, no materials have been produced before this Court to substantiate the contentions. It also remains to be a fact that the connection was never dismantled at any point of time, though it was cut off, which was subsequently restored pursuant to the interim order. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to place W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003 4 reliance on Ext.P6 bill issued after the 'spot billing' was introduced, to show that the consumption of the petitioner was quite consistent and this being the position, the figures given by the respondents in Ext.P4 (particularly as given tabulated at page 3 of Ext.P4 in respect of the period from September 1997 till January 2001 showing much variation as to the consumed units and the amount payable) are not correct or sustainable. More so, when the nature of business being pursued by the petitioner is not a power oriented business, but a shop dealing with selling Greeting Cards, which submission is sought to be substantiated with reference to the consistent level of energy consumption and extent of liability as revealed from Ext.P6 series bills issued after the introduction of 'spot billing' 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first petitioner to Ext. P3 judgment who had filed O.P.No. 29165 of 2002 along with the petitioner, on receipt of similar bills and on being confronted with similar situation, had approached this Court by filing O.P. 7214 of 2003, wherein interference was declined by the learned single Judge relegating the petitioner to W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003 5 avail the alternate remedy, which was subjected to challenge by filing W.A.No. 1384 of 2009. During the pendency of the said Writ Appeal, the parties were directed to be present before the Court and the records were also perused . After perusal of the records and hearing the parties concerned, the Division Bench of this Court passed the final verdict on 16.07.2009, whereby, to put a quietus to the matter, particularly when the records were very old and the correctness and sustainability of figures were disputed much, a workable solution was carved out and appropriate directions were given as given in paragraph No.3 of the judgment. This Court finds that a similar course has to be pursued in the connected case of this petitioner as well. 7. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to re-consider the matter in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1384 of 2009 and re-fix the liability of the petitioner . However, since it is shown by the respondents in Ext. P4 that the variation in consumption is mainly for the period from 9/1997, the period to be reckoned, in the light of observations of the Division Bench, is for the period W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003 6 from 9/1997 till 3/2001. The matter shall be considered and finalised as above, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the outcome shall be communicated to the petitioner by Registered Post as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; which shall be satisfied by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. Subject to this, further recovery proceedings/coercive steps, stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. The Writ Petition is disposed of . P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003 7 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ................................................... W.P.(C) No. 16848 OF 2003 ................................................... Dated this the 21st May, 2010 J U D G M E N T