IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18502 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AISHA BEEVI, W/O.SHAJIDEEN.M, RESIDING AT NAZEEB, T.C.34/1289, P.T.P.NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VELLAYAMBALAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.18502 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a domestic consumer of electricity supplied by the 1st respondent with Consumer No.9723. Ext.P6 is a penal bill that was issued to her demanding an amount of Rs.20,702/-. 2. The basis on which the bill was issued is that on 19/07/2005, an inspection was held in her premises, when theft of energy by inserting a plastic substance in the energy meter was detected. It would appear that when the bill was issued, the petitioner approached the Upa Lok Ayukta by filing complaint No.1595/2005. Evidence was tendered by both sides and finally appreciating oral and documentary evidence, the Upa Lok Ayukta rendered Ext.P1 order rejecting the case of the petitioner and upholding the contention of the respondent that it was a case of theft of energy. Accordingly the Upa Lok Ayukta upheld the action of the Board including the impugned demand. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge Ext.P1 and also the demands that WP(C) No.18502/2009 -2- were issued to him. 3. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the Upa Lok Ayukta has adverted to the entire evidence on material and has come to a conclusion that there has been theft of energy. This view is also supported by Ext.P2, which also shows that a film was inserted in the meter and by that method energy was being stolen. If that be so, the levy of penalty on the petitioner cannot be faulted. 4. The Upa Lok Ayukta having upheld the demand, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P6 demand, which has been raised by the respondent in terms of the provisions contained in Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2002. The writ petition fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg