IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 39486 of 2003(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MR.M. JAIHIND SAIT, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. SHALIMAR JEWELLERY, H.O. BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER PETER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR SECTION CENTRAL, POWER HOUSE ROAD, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL.R3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF the EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PALAKKAD. *(IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.2428/04 DATED 25/06/2004) ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB FOR R1&R2 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR THE KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.39486/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.59165 DATED 14/08/2003. P2 : COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.BC 52632 DATED 15/09/2003. P3 : COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.BC 59310 DATED 15/09/2003. P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/09/2003 IN WPC NO.30109/2003. P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GBI/22/03-04/2087 DATED 03/12/2003 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. P6 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/12/2003 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.39486 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Prayer made in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P3 & P5, the bill issued by the 2nd respondent, and the order confirming the same issued by the additional 3rd respondent. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Managing Partner of a firm, which is a consumer under the Electrical Major Section Central, Ernakulam with consumer No.509394. It is stated that in the year 2002 the 2nd respondent installed an electronic meter, which was replaced on 29/05/2003. Subsequently, based on the consumption that was recorded for the period subsequent thereto, the petitioner was issued Ext.P3 invoice demanding an amount of Rs.1,06,132/- allegedly the back assessment for a period of six months. 3. That demand was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.30109/2003. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedy of appeal before the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.39486/2003 -2- an appeal before the 3rd respondent and that was rejected by Ext.P5 order. It is challenging Ext.P5, the writ petition is filed. 4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as is evident from Ext.P4, according to the respondents, energy consumption recorded in the meter was erroneous, and it was therefore that Ext.P3 invoice for back assessment was issued. It is stated that if that were the case, the respondents ought to have followed the procedure as laid down under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It is pointed out that, on the other hand, the 2nd respondent unilaterally quantified the dues by himself and demanded the amount by Ext.P3, which is illegal. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board, referred to the counter affidavit and sought to justify Exts.P3 & P5. According to the learned standing counsel, as is evident from the facts itself, from June, 2003, the meter recordings show considerable increase in the consumption, and the only inference was that the previous meter was defective. It is stated that, it is therefore that Ext.P3 invoice demanding the amount towards the back assessment for the period permissible under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act read with Clause 31(C) of WP(C) No.39486/2003 -3- the Conditions of Supply was issued. 6. Irrespective of the details, fact remains that by Ext.P3, the invoice for back assessment was issued to the petitioner for a period of six months. The basis of such quantification is that the meter, which was installed in the premises of the petitioner was defective, in as much as according to the respondents, the energy consumed was not correctly recorded. 7. In my view, if that were the case, the procedure, which ought to have been followed by the respondents, was the one laid down in Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. Admittedly, this has not been followed, and if that be so, the impugned demand is clearly illegal. For that reason, Exts.P3 & P5 will stand set aside. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court on 16/12/2003, he has remitted an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Now that I have set aside Exts.P3 & P5, it is directed that the amount deposited by the petitioner in terms of the interim order referred to above will be adjusted towards the petitioner's future bills, The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg