IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 5900 of 2001(B) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ AISHABI FOUSIA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.MOOSA, BEKAL P.O., HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.THAMBAN SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, UDMA, KASARAGODE DIST. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R.), HOSDURG, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 & 2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.9800/2001 IN OP NO.5900/2001 DISPOSED OF VIDE JUDGMENT: 4.1.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ADJUSTMENT INVOICE-CUM-DISCONNECTION NOTICE ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. P2: TRUE COPY OF PREMISES METER CARD DT.30.10.98 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P3: RUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.17.10.2000 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.4.1.2001 ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.5900 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for KSEB. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 bill raised for the period of two years i.e. from 11/1998 to 2/2000 for the connection given in a shop room. It is seen from Ext.P1 that the units consumed was taken as 4009. However, according to the petitioner, the initial meter reading when the meter was installed was 4469. However, the argument of KSEB is that 4469 is the final reading and the initial reading of the meter was 460. The petitioner has produced Ext.P2 which is the meter card issued to her showing the initial meter reading as 4469. According to the petitioner, no consumption was made because the room remained vacant. It is not known why petitioner retained the connection if room was never let out. If local enquiry is conducted, there should be no difficulty for the second respondent to find out whether the room in question was used by anybody. If room was in occupation by anybody, then obviously there was use of power and if that be so, the petitioner is liable to pay charges for actual consumption or if meter is unreliable, on estimated consumption. Since KSEB has not filed 2 any counter denying Ext.P2, I dispose of the O.P. directing the second respondent to treat the present bill as a proposal, hear the petitioner's objections, conduct enquiry about use of the room where connection was given and recompute liability after issuing a proposal to the petitioner and after hearing petitioner's objections. The second respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the place of disputed bill within a period of one month from date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment for compliance. There will be stay against recovery of disputed demand until then and thereafter recovery will be based on revised demand. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms