IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14183 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ABDUL AZEEZ PROPRIETOR, AMEENA ICE AND COLD STORAGE AMEENA HOUSE, CHANDIROOR P.O.,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APTS) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD CENTRAL REGION, ALUVA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ELECTRICAL SECTION, AROOR ,ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (APTS) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ERNAKULAM. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 14183 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is conducting an Ice Plant and is availing of electricity supplied by the respondents with Consumer No.10120 . As is evident from Ext.P1 mahazar, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected his premises on 9/5/2003 and thereafter petitioner was issued Ext.P2 short assessment bill demanding an amount of Rs.2,13,759/-. He carried the matter in appeal by filing Ext.P3. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court complaining of delay in the disposal of the appeal by filing WP(C) No.17654/03. By Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed expeditious disposal of the appeal and granted a conditional order of stay. The appeal was finally heard and rejected by Ext.P5. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the defect noticed at the time of inspection was that the voltage was not getting to the 1st and 3rd phase, and consequently, only 1/3rd of the actual consumption was being recorded. It is stated that in such a situation, the respondents ought to have got the meter checked and unless that is done, the petitioner could not have been WPC 14183/09 :2 : saddled with any financial liability. Counsel rightly relies on the Division bench judgment of this Court in Nirmala Metal Industries v. KSEB and others (2006(3) KLT 465). 2. Although standing counsel appearing for the respondents argued the matter and attempted to sustain the demand, the correctness of the legal position as canvassed by the petitioner relying on the aforesaid judgment which was applicable during the period when the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was in force, could not be disputed. Admittedly inspection in question was at a time when the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was in force and the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment referred to above. Since the meter was not checked by the Electrical Inspector as required under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Exts.P2 and P5 and Ext.P6, the consequential demand, cannot be sustained and these orders are quashed. The writ petition is therefore disposed of quashing Exts.P2, P5 and P6 and directing that the amount remitted by the petitioner following the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.17654/03 shall be adjusted in the future bills. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp