IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 8755 of 2007(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DR.M.C.JOHNY, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O CHACKOCHAN, MANJALAY HOUSE, P.O.PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD(KSEB) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR(R.R.), MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, P.O.PORATHISSERY, IRINHALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THORAVU VILLAGE OFFICE, PUDUKKAD, P.O.PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B.ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B. PUDUKKAD P.O., PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1, R5 & R6 BY ADV. MR. JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 8755 OF 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 6.3.2006 EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONER WITH THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT DATED 6.3.2007 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 8755 of 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 28th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P1 notice, issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realization of the amount stated as arrears, from the part of the petitioner in respect of the electricity charges under the Consumer No. 9341 (LT VII A – PKD), for the period from January, 2002 to October, 2005, whereby a total sum of Rs.16,486/- has been demanded with further interest and cost as specified. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is a doctor by profession and was having an agricultural connection with consumer No. 9341, which was sought to be disconnected with an intent to have a fresh connection (commercial connection) and accordingly, necessary application was submitted on 18.9.1999. Pursuant to the request made by the petitioner, the authorities of the Board disconnected the supply and the connection was dismantled in the year, 2000. Subsequently, on satisfying the requirements, the petitioner was provided with a 'commercial connection' in September, 2001. Several years thereafter, on a fine morning, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 notice, under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to satisfy the liability as specified therein, in respect of the earlier 'agricultural connection' for W.P. (C) No. 8755 of 2007 : 2 : the period in question, as detailed in the Ext.P2, i.e. from January 2002 till October, 2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is absolutely no rationale for having issued Ext.P1, since the 'agricultural connection', which is forming the subject matter of Ext.P1, was not in existence during the relevant period; the same having been cut off and dismantled in the year 2000. It is also stated that, if any amount is not paid by the consumer and it was lying in arrears for a period of six months, by virtue of the clear mandate under clause 34 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, the electricity connection was to be cut off and dismantled, simultaneously terminating the agreement executed in this regard. Since no such steps have been admittedly taken from the part of the respondents, issuance of Ext.P1 notice demanding arrears from January,2002 till October, 2005 is not liable to be sustained, submits the learned counsel. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, though, the matter was admitted by this Court on 21.03.2007, simultaneously intercepting the coercive steps on condition that, the petitioner deposited 50 % of the amount demanded vide Ext.P1. The legal position as to the extent of the liability, if at all the consumer commits default in satisfying the electricity charges, is seriously disputed from the part of the respondents. Since no counter affidavit W.P. (C) No. 8755 of 2007 : 3 : has been filed, the factual position as given by the petitioner stands uncontroverted and this prima facie suggests that the earlier 'agricultural connection' of the petitioner was disconnected, pursuant to the request made by the petitioner in the year 2000. 4. However, the learned standing counsel brought it to the notice of this Court, with reference to the averments made by the petitioner himself in the bottom of the opening paragraph of the Writ Petition at page 4, that ”But till 2001 the charges were paid. Since 2001, the charges were not paid and therefore there is disconnection and it is the duty of the respondents who are officials of the Board to effect dismantling rather than raise bills” In the said circumstances, since the petitioner contends one hand that the disconnection was effected pursuant to his request in 2000, the very same petitioner states that, he used to satisfy electricity charges in respect of the electricity connection till 2001. This being the position, the version of the petitioner can not be taken as it is. 5. With regard to the other contentions in the Writ Petition, that there can not be two different connections in the same premises, the learned standing counsel submits that, there is no such prohibition in this regard. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the said ground much, this Court does not propose to consider the same. W.P. (C) No. 8755 of 2007 : 4 : 6. Going by the available materials on record and relevant provisions of law, this Court finds that there is absolutely no basis to sustain Ext.P1, as it is. More so, when no counter affidavit has been filed as to the actual facts and figures. In the said circumstances, the same is set aside and the liability of the petitioner is scaled down and confined to a period of six months from the date of disconnection. The sixth respondent is directed to issue a fresh/revised bill with specific reference to the date of disconnection and the liability for the next six months as above, and also giving credit to the amount satisfied by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order dated 21.3.2007. The balance liability if any, shall be cleared by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of revised bill as above. If it is found that any amount is to be refunded to the petitioner, the same shall be effected within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd