IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 OP.No. 36843 of 2002(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LAILAMMA ANTHRAYOSE, AGED 35, EANTHUMAKATTIL HOUSE, AMAYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL SECTION, MOOLAVATTOM P.O., NATTAKAM, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PALLAM, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SUB ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL SECTION, MOOLAVATTOM P.O., NATTAKAM, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ONCMP NO.62143/2002 IN OP. NO.36843/2002 DISMISSED 27/05/2010 SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- SERIES: COPIES OF ELECTRICITY BILLS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2002 TO AUGUST 2002. P2:- COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 17.8.2002. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27.8.02 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. P4:- COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 28.8.02 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 31.8.02 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 3.9.02 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 6.9.02 IN OP. NO.25446/02 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P7(a):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 19.9.02 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF 25% OF EXT.P4 BILL. P8:- COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 16.11.2002 BY PETITIONER. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 19.11.02. P11:- COPIES OF BILL FOR THE MONTHS OF AUGUST, SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2002 ISSUED TO PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- O.P.No.36843 of 2002 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Proprietrix of a rubber manufacturing unit. A surprise inspection was conducted in the business premises of the petitioner on 17-8-2002 by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board, Nattakom. On inspection it was found that one phase of the meter was not recording consumption of electrical energy. It was noticed that the meter was recording only 2/3rd of the energy consumed by the petitioner's factory. Based on the inspection report, Ext.P4 demand notice was issued to the petitioner demanding payment of the sum of Rs.1,03,667/- along with Ext.P5 letter demanding payment of the amount demanded failing which the petitioner was threatened that the electricity supply to the petitioner's business premises will be disconnected. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P6 representation before the Executive Engineer. She thereafter filed O.P.No.25446 of 2002 in this Court. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 6.9.2002 this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to raise additional grounds in the representation (Ext.P6) already submitted by him and with a further direction to the Executive Engineer to dispose of the said O.P.No.36843 of 2002 -:2:- representation. This Court also directed that in the event of the petitioner remitting 25% of the amount demanded, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 demand notice will be kept in abeyance. Pursuant to the said direction the petitioner filed Ext.P8 appeal before the Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer heard the petitioner and passed Ext.P10 order dated 19-11-2002 overruling the petitioner's contentions and holding that the demand was properly raised. Ext.P10 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Ext.P10 discloses that one phase of the three phase meter installed in the petitioner's industrial unit was not recording consumption of electrical energy. In other words, the meter was recording only 2/3rd of the energy consumed in the petitioner's business premises. Based on the energy consumption for six months immediately preceding the date of inspection, the Assistant Engineer came to the conclusion that the meter did not record consumption of 34270 units of energy during that period. Ext.P4 invoice was thereupon issued demanding payment of energy charges together with electricity duty aggregating to Rs.1,03,667/-. 3. Though the respondents have not filed a counter affidavit, on going through Ext.P10 and the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P8 memorandum of appeal, I am satisfied that the decision O.P.No.36843 of 2002 -:3:- rendered by the Executive Engineer does not merit interference. The pleadings disclose that 25% of the amount demanded in Ext.P4 had been paid on 19-9-2002 pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. By virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court the respondents were restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply. In the view that I have taken, the petitioner will have to pay the balance amount demanded in Ext.P4 together with interest at the applicable rates. Even though I am not inclined to uphold the challenge to Ext.P10, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to pay the balance amount due in four equal monthly instalments. 4. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. The respondents shall however, permit the petitioner to pay the balance amount demanded in Ext.P4 notice, after giving credit to the sum of Rs.25,920/- evidenced by Ext.P7(a) receipt together with interest at the applicable rates, in four equal monthly instalments. The second respondent shall, in order to enable the petitioner to make payment as aforesaid, issue within one week from today, a demand notice setting out the total amount payable by her. The petitioner shall, on receipt of the same, pay the amount covered by the said demand notice in four O.P.No.36843 of 2002 -:4:- equal monthly instalments. The first of such instalments shall be paid on or before 30-6-2010 and the balance on the 30th of every succeeding English calendar month. In the event of the petitioner defaulting remittance of any one of the four instalments it will be open to the respondents to realise the amount due from her in lump and also take such other steps as are permitted under law. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- O.P.No.36843 of 2002 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 27th May, 2010