IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 15374 of 2001(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHACKO JOSE, PULIMOOTTIL SILK HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI. P.R. VENKITESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, SECRETARIAT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DY. CHIEF ENGINEER (ANTI POWER THEFT SQUAD), VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2 TO R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 15374/2001. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT. 22-6-2000. EXT.P2 BILL DT. 17-6-2000. EXT.P3 REPRESENTATION DT. 29-6-2000. EXT.P4 APPEAL FILED BEFORE R3. EXT.P5 COMMUNICATION DT. 29-6-2000. EXT.P6 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 18832/2000 DT. 5-7-2000. EXT.P7 PROCEEDINGS DT. 1-9-2000. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 19-4-2001. EXT.P9 DEMAND NOTICE DT. 2-5-2001. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 15374 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 14th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity supplied by the Kerala State Electricity Board. By Ext. P1 dated 22-6-2000, he was informed that the Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the electric installation of the petitioner and found that two phases of the power meter is not recording consumption of energy and hence the petitioner is re-assessed for two times the recorded consumption to compensate the unreadable portion of energy retrospectively for past six months. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P2 demand bill was also issued for an amount of Rs. 3,09,407/-. The petitioner disputed that the meter was not recording correctly and filed Ext. P3 application before the Chief Electrical Inspector. The petitioner also filed Ext. P4 appeal before the 3rd respondent. Since both were not considered, the petitioner filed O.P.No. 18832/2000, in which, by Ext. P6 judgment, this Court directed Ext. P4 appeal to be considered and disposed of. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P8 order has been passed, whereby the demand was confirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext. P9 demand for an amount of Rs. 3,65,101/-. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this original petition challenging the said proceedings of the Board seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P2, P8 and P9; b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to take up and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P3. c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to raise any demand on the petitioner for energy consumed in relation to the period mentioned in Exhibit P2 only in consequence of the relief prayed for in prayed 2 above.” O.P.No. 15374/2001. -: 2 :- 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that when the petitioner disputed the stand of the Board that the meter was not recording correctly, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector as enjoined under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. Therefore, without a decision by the Electrical Inspector on the point, the respondents could not have unilaterally decided that the meter was not recording correctly and demanded additional electricity charges from the petitioner on the ground that the meter was not recording the energy consumption correctly, is the contention raised by the petitioner. 3. Although, no counter affidavit has been filed, the learned counsel for the Electricity Board seeks to support the impugned orders on the basis of a decision of this Court in Southern India Marine Products Company v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 1995(2) KLT 67. 4. The question as to whether on a dispute raised as to whether meter is recording consumption correctly, the Electricity Board is bound to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector, I have, after elaborately considering the question, in three original petitions, viz. O.P.Nos. 26123, 27988 and 29518 of 1999, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Laffans (India) (P) Ltd., and another, (2005) 4 SCC 327 and Sub Divisional Officer (P) UHBVNL v. Dharam Pal, (2006) 12 SCC 222 taken a view that without such reference to the Electrical Inspector, no demand could have been raised by the Board against the consumer. In those cases, the Board's stand was that since one phase of the three phase meter was not working, the meter was recording only 50% of the consumption, and therefore the consumer is liable to pay charges for the balance 50% unrecorded O.P.No. 15374/2001. -: 3 :- consumption also. In this case, the stand of the Board is that since the two phases are not working, the meter was recording only 1/3rd of the actual consumption. Therefore, the facts of those cases are identical to the facts of this case. Therefore, following the view I have taken in those cases, this original petition is allowed and the impugned demand is set aside. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/