IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 26304 of 1999(F) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. ANAPPURAM RUBBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., ANAPPURAM, KINASSERY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.B., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ANTI-POWER THEFT SQUAD (HQ), K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.S.E.B., VYDUTHI BHAVAN, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC.KSEB FOR R1 TO R4 SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB SRI. P.K.KARUNAKARAN, S.C. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 26304/1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DST. 14-4-1999. EXT.P2 COMMUNICATION DT. 28-5-99. EXT.P3 APPEAL MEMORADUM DT. 13-5-1999. EXT.P4 COMMUNICATION DT. 3-6-1999. EXT.P5 JUDGMENT IN O.P. 14389/99. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 5-10-1999. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 26304 of 1999 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th April, 2009. J U D G M E N T The question involved in this original petition is as to whether in view of the alleged wrong C.T connections in a meter, the Kerala State Electricity Board, on the allegation that the meter was not recording the actual consumption of electricity, can demand additional electricity charges from the petitioner as a consumer of electricity. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had been regularly paying electricity charges as per bills issued from time to time. But, suddenly, the petitioner was served with Ext. P1 bill for an amount of Rs. 2,95,294.55 alleged to be electricity charges short assessed on the petitioner on account of the wrong C.T. connections in the meter. According to the petitioner, he was never informed about any wrong C.T. connection in the meter. He further submits that the meter is kept sealed and the petitioner does not have any access to the inside of the meter so as to tamper with the connections. The petitioner points out that the Board has no case that the seal has been tampered with. Therefore, if the Kerala State Electricity Board had a case that the meter is not recording the consumption of energy correctly, no additional electricity charges could have been demanded from the petitioner except after complying with the procedure prescribed in Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910 is the contention of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner challenges Ext. P1 bill and Ext. P6 appellate order in this regard.. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent in which it has been asserted that on inspection of the premises of the petitioner's electrical installation on 19-2-1999, it was found that the meter was registering only 1/3rd consumption since the B phase CT of the power meter was reversely connected. It was also found that the 1st and 2nd phases were working properly but when load was applied O.P. No. 26304/99 -: 2 :- to the 3rd phase, the meter was found rotating in the reverse direction. According to them, when it was brought to the notice of the manager of the shop, a site mahazar was prepared, which was acknowledged by the representative of the petitioner. According to the Board, in so far as the meter was recording less than the actual consumption, the petitioner is liable to make good the charges for actual consumption after adjusting the amount already paid by him. Of course, the respondents would raise a vague allegation of tampering with the meter, but nothing specific is brought to my attention in that regard. As such, I am not inclined to go into the question as to whether there was any tampering of the meter in so far as there is absolute no material produced before me to even suggest a possibility of tampering by the petitioner. 3. The question as to whether a licensee can, without reference to the Electrical Inspector, demand electricity charges alleged to be short assessed on account of the meter not recording the electricity consumption correctly, without complying with the procedure prescribed in Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, has been decided by me in George Joseph v. K.S.E.B. and others, ILR 2008 (4) Kerala 377 and I had held thus: “20. After referring to the above decision, a Division Bench of this Court has also come to the same conclusion in Nirmala Metal Industries v. K.S.E.B., [2006(3) KLT 465] wherein, the Division Bench held that if the Board wants to raise a bill on the plea that it is a defective meter, it is for the Board to do the same in accordance with Section 26 of the Act and that when the meter has already been removed by the board to its testing centre and not to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6), the Board is not justified in raising the bill against the consumer. In that decision, the Division Bench quashed similar demands as in this case. Coming to the present case, the Board has unilaterally come to the conclusion that one phase of the meter was not recording consumption, purported to have corrected the meter themselves, without first referring the O.P. No. 26304/99 -: 3 :- matter to the Electrical Inspector and raised demand for additional electricity charges from the petitioner on that ground. As already stated, the Board has no case that the petitioner has tampered with the meter. Their case is that the meter was not recording the actual consumption since one phase of the meter was not working. That essentially means that the meter was not running correctly and the same was running slow, which case is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decisions quoted above. Since the Board has, without referring the dispute to the Electrical Inspector, purported to correct the meter and raise additional demand, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as granted by the Supreme Court to the appellant in Bombay Electricity Supply's case (supra), [(2005) 4 SCC 327] in paragraphs 13 and 14 quoted above and the Division Bench of this Court in Nirmala Metal Industries' case (supra). Therefore, the demand for 50% of the recorded consumption of light meter on the ground that one phase was not recording consumption in Exts.P.5 and P6 is unsustainable and the same is hereby set aside.” In view of that decision, I am satisfied that the respondents could not have realised any additional electricity charges from the petitioner in addition to what he has already paid in so far as the Kerala State Electricity Board has not chosen to comply with the procedure prescribed in Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act. Accordingly, Exts.P1 and P6 orders are quashed. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/