IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29227 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.K. HARIKUMAR, CO-ORDINATOR, THAMATH INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 561. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETRAY. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU WP(C).No. 29227 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 19/05/1999 EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR BY THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, AMBALAPUZHA DATED 11/08/2011 EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 18/08/2011 EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24/08/2011 EXHIBIT-P5- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 20/09/2011 EXHIBIT-P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DB/ES/AMZ.24/16/28-09-2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28/09/2011 EXHIBIT-P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 28/09/2011 EXHIBIT-P8- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04/10/2011 EXHIBIT-P9- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 07/10/2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. STU P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29227 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Co-ordinator of the Thamath Institute of Management and Technology, which is a division of Global Education Net, a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act. 2. A team of officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board headed by the Assistant Executive Engineer inspected the aforesaid establishment on 11.8.2011 and prepared Ext.P2 mahazar wherein the connected load was estimated as 26,366 watts . Thereupon Ext.P3 demand notice was issued demanding payment of the sum of Rs.41,698/- being the penal charges for unauthorised load of 12 KW for a period of one year. Upon receipt of Ext.P3 demand notice, the petitioner sent Ext.P4 letter dated 24.8.2011 to the Deputy Chief Engineer, the second respondent herein, objecting to the demand notice and the mahazar. A copy thereof was forwarded to the Assistant Executive Engineer as also the Assistant Engineer. The Assistant Engineer to whom a copy of Ext.P4 letter was sent, issued Ext.P5 letter dated 20.9.2011 proposing to conduct a hearing at 11 a.m. on 24.9.2011. The petitioner appeared for the hearing, he was heard and thereafter the Assistant Engineer issued Ext.P6 order dated W.P.(C) No.29227 of 2011 2 28.9.2011 directing the issuance of a final bill for Rs.41,698/-. The petitioner thereupon sent Ext.P8 letter dated 4.8.2011 stating that he is proposing to challenge Ext.P7 bill in this Court and under protest he is depositing 50% of the amount demanded thereon. Thereupon on 7.10.2011, 50% of the amount demanded in Ext.P7 bill, viz., the sum of Rs.20,849/- was remitted as can be seen from Ext.P9 receipt. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 2.11.2011 challenging Exts.P3 and P7 demand notices and Ext.P6 order. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the procedure prescribed in section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has not been followed by the Assistant Engineer while issuing the impugned demand. It is also contended that as per Regulation 50(5) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, penal charges for unauthorised use of electricity can be levied only for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of inspection. 4. I heard Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.P.K.Radhika, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board. Under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 where unauthorised use of electrical energy is W.P.(C) No.29227 of 2011 3 detected, the officer conducting inspection has to issue a provisional bill, consider the objections raised by the consumer and thereafter pass an order and depending on the decision taken by him, issue a final bill. If the consumer is aggrieved by the final order and the bill, he can challenge it in appeal before the appellate authority, after deposit of the 50% of the amount demanded. In the instant case, such a procedure was not followed. The Assistant Engineer did not issue a provisional bill or afford an opportunity to the petitioner to object to the provisional bill. Instead, he straight-away issued Ext.P3 demand notice. Though the petitioner sent Ext.P4 letter dated 24.8.2011 styling it as an appeal, he heard the appeal himself and thereafter passed Ext.P6 order. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned demand notices and order cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside Exts.P3 and P7 demand notices and Ext.P6 order and direct that in the event of the petitioner filing objections to Ext.P3 demand notice by treating it as a provisional demand notice within two weeks from today the first respondent shall consider the objections, hear him and pass orders, after adverting to all the contentions raised by the petitioner. It will W.P.(C) No.29227 of 2011 4 be open to the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the outcome of the said proceedings, to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings. His contentions on the merits are kept open. In the event of the petitioner challenging the order passed by the first respondent in appeal, the amount already deposited by him as per Ext.P9 receipt shall be taken into account for the purpose of computing the amount payable by way of pre-deposit. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29227 OF 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 4th November, 2011 --------------------------------------