IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 41024 of 2003(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- AGNI STEELS PVT.LTD.,NATTUKAL, NALLEPPILLY,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER M.GOVINDASWAMY. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), K.S.E.B.VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,KSEB,PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).41024/03 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT CONSUMED FROM JUNE 1998 TO JUNE 2000 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF INVOICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS DT.19.12.2003 EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BEFORE R2 AND R3 DT.26.12.03 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL OKB //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.41024 of 2003 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 invoice. The petitioner is an HT consumer engaged in manufacture of M.S.Ingots. According to him, he was regularly paying Electricity charges without any default and Ext.P2 demand was issued without disclosing details on the basis of which such a demand is made. Ext.P2(a) is the advice for payment issued along with Ex.P2 Bill. It reveals that the demand is raised for the period from 6/1998 to 6/2000 on the basis of audit objection and due to discrepancy in meter reading. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 objection to the 2nd respondent wherein he had raised various contentions against sustainability of the impugned demand. It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that demand raised on the basis of an audit objection, after a long lapse of W.P.(C).41024/03 -2- time, was held by this court as unsustainable, in the decision in Cyriac v. K.S.E.B. (1989 (1) KLT 920). Since no action was taken on the basis of Ext.P3 and the petitioner was threatened with coercive steps of disconnection this writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is pointed out that as per Regulation 37 of the KSEB Terms & Conditions of Supply, 2005, the competent authority to look into disputes regarding the bills with respect to HT consumers, is the Deputy Chief Engineer. Since the petitioner had endorsed a copy of Ext.P3 to the 3rd respondent Deputy Chief Engineer, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, treating the same as an appeal under Regulation 37, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner will be free to file additional W.P.(C).41024/03 -3- statements if any and to raise all contentions including the contention based on the decision cited above, before the 3rd respondent. If the petitioner makes any request for split up details of the impugned bill, the 3rd respondent shall arrange for furnishing such details to the petitioner. 4. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Realisation of the amount covered by the impugned demand shall be kept in abeyance till a decision on Ext.P3 is taken and communicated to the petitioner, as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb