IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20403 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MR.P.P.RAFEEQUE, M/S.SAIRA GIFT HOUSE, KALADY JUNCTION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY RAFEEQUE.P.P., AGED 41, S/O.PAREETH PUTHUKKADAN. BY ADVS. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY, SRI.ADEEP ANWAR. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542. 3. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ADTS, THRISSUR - 630 380. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20403/2011 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILLDTD. 22/06/2011 FOR RS.14459/- OF THE KSEB, PERUMBAVOOR SECTION. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/07/2011 OF THE KSEB, PERUMBAVOOR SECTION. P3: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR OF KSEB DTD. 25/07/2011. P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 16/03/2011 WITH NO.313018 FOR AMOUNT OF RS.14,451/- OF KSEB. P6: COPY OF THE BILL WITH NO.313014 FOR RS.11,876/- OF THE KSEB. P7: COPY OF THE BILL WITH NO.313012 FOR RS.13,125/- DTD. 15/07/2011 OF THE KSEB. P8: COPY OF THE BILL WITH NO.95516 FOR RS.1,30,002/- OF THE KSEB. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20403 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. The petitioner's business premises was inspected by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Kerala State Electricity Board on 25.7.2011. Ext.P3 mahazar was thereupon prepared. It is stated therein that the petitioner had used a very powerful magnet to disrupt the meter and that the counter mechanism was in disarray. After inspection, the supply to the petitioner's business premises was disconnected and later Ext.P8 demand notice dated 25.7.2011 demanding payment of Rs.1,30,002/- was issued. This writ petition is filed challenging the disconnection of electricity supply and seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the electricity connection. 2. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Premkumar M.S. v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others (2008 (4) KHC 1028) held that this Court must attempt to produce a result which will give effect to all the provisions of the Act, viz., sections 126 and 135 (1A) of Electricity Act, 2003. The learned single Judge further held that in the case of theft, the entire amount demanded in the provisional bill should be paid. Such being the situation, I am of the W.P.(C) No.20403 of 2011 2 opinion that the petitioner should pay the entire amount demanded in Ext.P8 invoice, if he is desirous of getting the electricity supply restored. The question whether the demand made in Ext.P8 is sustainable or not will have to be decided by the Assistant Engineer, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of file his objections. In such circumstances, I do not propose to go into the merits of the petitioner's contentions at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing that in the event of the petitioner paying the money demanded in Ext.P8 bill, the electricity connection to the petitioner's premises shall be restored after installing a new meter. Such payment will be subject to the final order to be passed by the Assistant Engineer after hearing the petitioner. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.