IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10303 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUBHA G.MENON, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. GOKUL MENON, PLOT NO.35, 12TH MAIN LAUGHING WATERS, R.G.HULLY, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.VISWANATHAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN ELAYIDAM, SREEVALSAM, CHOTTANIKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN, SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN, SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED, SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR, SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY , VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERLA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION COLLEGE, CLUB ROAD, KOCHI-682 011. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.10303 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 bill seeking to recover arrears of electricity charges from the petitioner. The petitioner is one of the co-owners of a two storeyed commercial building complex by name, Manchu Complex. The building has an electric connection, which is in the name of the petitioner's father, who is no more. The petitioner is residing at Bangalore. Portions of the building have been sold to various persons who are in occupation of the respective areas purchased by them. The petitioner was supplying electricity to the common areas of the building. While so, the Anti- Power Theft Squad(APTS) of the Kerala State Electricity Board inspected the building and found that five owners of the building were illegally extracting electrical energy from the connection in the name of the petitioner's father. Therefore, a mahazar was prepared and a bill was issued for an amount of Rs.3,99,552/-. Though the petitioner had requested the authorities to take action against the persons who had Wpc 10303/2010 2 illegally extracted electrical energy and to exonerate the petitioner, no action was taken. Subsequently, Ext.P9 bill has been issued demanding an amount of Rs.2,28,339/- as arrears of electricity charges. It is also mentioned that if the amount is not paid before 25.3.2010, the supply would be disconnected. It is submitted that two of the persons who had consumed electricity illegally had made some payments, for which due credit has been given in Ext.P9. 2. The counsel for the KSEB submits that the electrical energy was consumed by the other occupants of the building with the consent of the petitioner. It is pointed out that separate metres had been installed to ascertain the quantity of energy consumed by each of the said occupants, which can only be at the instance of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the said occupants were paying the charges for the energy consumed by them to the petitioner, which she was remitting to the KSEB. 3. In view of the fact that electricity was supplied by the petitioner to the other occupants without any authority, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount that is demanded in Ext.P9. The petitioner can Wpc 10303/2010 3 no doubt file a suit against the other occupants for the recovery of the charges for the electricity consumed by them. After having installed meters to monitor the consumption of the other occupants, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that she was not aware of the said consumption. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. It is submitted by the counsel for the KSEB that the petitioner's supply has already been disconnected. The petitioner can seek for reconnection of the supply on payment of the amount demanded as per Ext.P9. 4. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P9. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not affect the right of the petitioner to recover the amounts paid by her pursuant to Ext.P9 bill with respect to charges for the electrical energy consumed by the other co-owners of the building, from the persons who had actually consumed the energy. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk