IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1945 of 2011(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD., REGD.OFFICE AT PIROSHANAGAR,VIKHROLI, MUMBAI-400079,BRANCH AT BUILDING NO.IX/A4,A5&A6 IN GROUP MUKKADAN'S LOGISTIC PARK,EDACHIRA, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682030,REP. BY IS BRANCH COMMERCIAL MANAGER,T.V.SCARIACHAN. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SRI.R.PADMARAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM-18. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THRIKKAKARA-682030. 3. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THRIKKAKARA-682030. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1945 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. He has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P2, P3, P4, P5, P5(a) and P6 invoices. The dispute arose pursuant to an inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad on 11.10.2010. It was then found that one phase of the digital meter installed in the petitioner's premises is defective. Ext.P3 notice was thereupon raised demanding payment of Rs.9,86,719/-. The petitioner objected to the said demand. The said objection was over ruled and he was informed that if he is still aggrieved, he can move the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Ernakulam after remitting 50% of the said amount. Hence this writ petition. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission-hearing, the learned standing counsel submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned demand, his remedy is to move the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum constituted under sub-section (5) of section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that the Assistant Engineer had wrongly stated in Ext.P6 letter that an appeal lies to the Deputy Chief Engineer. The learned counsel also submitted that the W.P.(C) No.1945 of 2011 2 an appeal to the Deputy Chief Engineer lies only from assessments made under section 126 and that in the instant case, the provision applicable is regulation 25(4) of KSEB Supply Code 2005 framed by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and therefore the remedy of the petitioners, if they are aggrieved by the impugned demand is to move the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and thereafter the Ombudsman. In the light of the said submission and having regard to the fact that resolution of the dispute requires technical expertise which the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and the Ombudsman possess, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should invoke the said remedy instead of seeking the intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I, accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition reserving liberty with the petitioner to challenge the impugned demand in other appropriate proceedings. In order to enable the petitioner to move the appropriate forum and to seek interim orders, the respondents shall not enforce the demand for a period of one week from today. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.