IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 259 of 2008 in OP 15639/98 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.15639/1998 Dated 25/01/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN OP: ---------------------------------------------------- M/S. S.V.A.STEELS RE-ROLLING MILLS LTD., NALEPPILLY VILLAGE, NATTUKAL P.O., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, R. ELANGOVAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN OP: ------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), OFFICE OF THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.B., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL & TERMAL) K.S.E.B., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 7.3.2008, THE COURT ON 24/3/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ============== R.P.No.259 of 2008 in O.P.No.15639 of 1998 =============== Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008. ORDER This is a petition seeking review of the judgment dated 25.1.2008 in O.P.No.15639 of 1998. The original petition was dismissed following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.No.9480 of 1988. The petitioner has sought a review of the said judgment contending that the decision in O.P.No.9480 of 1988 does not govern the case on hand. 2. I heard Sri.K.Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner. The learned counsel for the review petitioner contended with reference to the averments in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the original petition that the meter installed in the factory premises of the petitioner was damaged due to lightning on 28.3.1998, that the power supply was disconnected from 28.3.1998 to 5.4.1998, that the meter was replaced on 28.4.1998 and that due to the defective meter, the RP 259/08 -: 2 :- petitioner was not in a position to monitor the consumption of power for the month of March, 1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there was power interruption for 96.25 hours during the period from 6.4.1998 to 29.4.1998 and therefore the Board was not justified in calculating the energy consumed for the month of April, 1998, without taking into account the power interruption for 96.25 hours. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent as early as on 16.2.1999, the first respondent has stated that the first 30% of the consumption in the petitioner's factory was charged at EREB rates and the balance 70% at the tariff rate applicable to the petitioner. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that the meter became faulty due to lightning on 28.3.1998, that the power supply was disconnected that day, that during the period from 1.3.1998 to 28.3.1998 the consumption recorded by the meter was 340100 units, that there was no consumption of power from 28.3.1998 to 31.3.1998, that the consumption upto 28.3.1998 itself had crossed the limit of 70% of the base average consumption of RP 259/08 -: 3 :- 315000 units and therefore, the total consumption of 340100 units in March, 1998 was split into 30% and 70% and first 30% was charged at the EREB rate of Rs.3.20 per unit. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after obtaining an undertaking from the petitioner, power supply was restored on 5.4.1998 and thereafter, the meter was replaced on 28.4.1998. It is stated that the energy consumed in the petitioner's factory from 5.4.1998 to 28.4.1998 was charged based on the average consumption recorded from 28.4.1998 to 30.4.1998, which comes to 24900 units. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that based on the said average consumption, the energy consumed for the month of April, 1998 was estimated as 323700 units. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that for the month of April, 1998 also, the petitioner's factory had crossed the limit of 70% of the base average consumption of 315000 units and hence, the first 30% was charged at EREB rate. 4. The petitioner has not chosen to file a reply affidavit dealing with the averments in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the counter affidavit. It is evident from a reading of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent that during the month of March, RP 259/08 -: 4 :- 1998, even before the meter became faulty, the consumption of energy in the petitioner's factory had crossed 70% of the base average consumption of 315,000 units and that for March, 1998, the petitioner was billed only for the energy consumed from 1.3.1998 to 28.3.1998. It is also evident from the counter affidavit that the electricity supply was restored on 5.4.1998 even before the meter was replaced after the petitioner undertook to pay the energy charges based on the average consumption recorded after the meter was replaced. From 28.4.1998 to 30.4.1998, the consumption was found to be 24900 units. It is based on the undertaking given by the petitioner that the average energy consumed was taken as the basis for computing the quantum of electrical energy consumed in April, 1998. I therefore find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the invoices for the months of March and April, 1998 are arbitrary and illegal. 5. As regards the petitioner's contention that the Board should have taken note of the power interruption during the month of April, 1998, apart from merely stating that there was power interruption for 96.25 hours during the period from RP 259/08 -: 5 :- 6.4.1998 to 29.4.1998 the petitioner has not chosen to give the details of the power interruption. The contention is that as there was power interruption for 96.25 hours from 6.4.1998 to 29.4.1998 the Board cannot, based on the consumption recorded for two days after the meter was replaced on 28.4.1998, apply the average consumption for the rest of the days on a uniform basis without taking into account the power interruption during the month of April, 1998. It is admitted in the original petition that there was power interruption on 29.4.1998 after the meter was replaced. It was taking note of the average consumption on 29.4.1998 and 30.4.1998 as agreed to by the petitioner that the energy consumed for April, 1998 was assessed. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot escape from the liability to pay the energy charges for the month of April, 1998, after having given an undertaking to pay the energy charges based on the average consumption, on the plea that there was power interruption. 6. On a consideration of the submissions made at the Bar and the pleadings raised in the original petition, I find that there is no merit in the contentions raised in this review petition. As noticed in the judgment sought to be reviewed, the petitioner RP 259/08 -: 6 :- has not challenged the order of the Board dated 12.12.1997 whereby the petitioner was liable to pay energy charges at higher rate for the first 30% of the consumption. No grounds have been made out to review the judgment dated 25.1.2008 in O.P.No.15639 of 1998. The review petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 10/3