IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30130 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.D.JOSE, AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.DEVASSY,PONTHENPILLY HOUSE, OKKAL P.O.,PERUMBAVOOR,MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.EDAPPANA AGRO MILLS,OKKAL P.O., OKKAL,PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. MR.G.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR SECTION,K.S.E.BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION,K.S.E.BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD,PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 30130 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity from the Kerala State Electricity Board. According to the petitioner he has been regularly paying the electricity bills issued to him without default as per the meter reading. The petitioner was served with Ext.P1 additional bill directing him to pay an amount of Rs.1,27,291/-. The petitioner is challenging the same. According to the petitioner, without informing the consumer as to why he has to pay additional electricity charges and hearing him on the same, no bill could have been issued, he being a consumer paying the electricity bills promptly. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of Ext.P1 bill. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents also. 3. I am of opinion that the petitioner is correct. Before asking a consumer to pay additional electricity charges, respondents are bound to inform the petitioner as to why the petitioner is liable to pay additional charges, before issuing the bill. The petitioner should be given an opportunity of being heard also since the petitioner has been regularly paying electricity bills W.P(C) No. 30130 of 2009 -2- issued to him from time to time as per the meter reading. Therefore I am satisfied that Ext.P1 is violative of the principles of natural justice. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is quashed. The 2nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner detailing the grounds on which the respondents want to demand additional electricity charges from the petitioner and give him an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Only if despite the contentions of the petitioner the amount can be validly demanded, the petitioner can be required to pay additional electricity charges. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs