IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29091 of 2004(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.JAYARAJ TYRE MOULD INDUSTRIES, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, WEST HILL, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER K.S.PAUL RAJ. BY ADV. MR.MOHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, WEST HILL, CALICUT. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.29091/2004-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL BILL NO.71477 DTD. 25/02/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF CONSUMER NO. 3639. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P.(C).7768/2004. EXT.P.3: CP, STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER DTD. NIL. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 16/12/2002 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DTD. 07/04/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 02/08/2004 PASSED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.29091 of 2004 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a small scale industry, availing of supply of energy from the respondent Board as an LT consumer. Based on an audit report dated 18/08/2003, they were issued Ext.P1, a bill demanding Rs.85,258/-, and that was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.7768/2004. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing the respondents to treat Ext.P1 as a notice and give an opportunity to the petitioner to raise its objections. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 objection. Ext.P6 is the final order that was passed. In Ext.P6, the demand as per Ext.P1 was upheld. It is challenging Ext.P1 and its confirmation in Ext.P6, this writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of the impugned order shows that the meter in the petitioner’s premises became faulty and was replaced on 10/09/2001. On replacement it was found that one phase of the replaced meter was not working, and that as a result thereof, one WP(C) No.29091/2004 -2- half of the consumption was not being recorded. It is stated that this position continued till November, 2002. It was to realize the aforesaid loss, Ext.P1 bill was issued. 3. However, in the writ petition, the petitioner has raised a specific contention that the defect in the meter was noticed on 10/09/2001, and that on noticing the said defect, it was corrected immediately thereafter. It is stated that in the bill for the month of September, 2001 issued in the month of October, 2001, additional amount was also charged on that account. According to the petitioner, replacement of the meter in December, 2002 was for the reason that its display had failed as a result of short circuit at the service line portion on 28/11/2002. He is also referring to Ext.P4 bill to substantiate this contention. 4. If as stated by the petitioner, the defect noticed in September, 2001 was rectified, there is no justification in levying additional charge on the petitioner for any period subsequent thereto. However, this factual contention of the petitioner is not seen adverted to by the 1st respondent while considering the matter as directed in Ext.P2 judgment. If this issue is found in favour of WP(C) No.29091/2004 -3- the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been made liable for any further amount. For non-consideration of this contention, I am satisfied that the matter needs to be reconsidered. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P6 will stand quashed, and the 1st respondent shall re-consider the matter and pass fresh orders, with notice to the petitioner. It is directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings for realizing any amount on Ext.P1 will stand stayed, and the payment made by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 05/10/2004 will be appropriated, once the liability is finally determined. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg