IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8010 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- T.P.SUHARABI, PROP.MUNEERA SAW MILLS, MALIAKKALPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, MANJERI. 3. THE ASSISANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, AREEKODE. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, KEEZHISSERY. BY SC SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.8010 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner faces a bill by revision of demand relatable to 2006. The premises is a saw mill. It appears that metering has to be done with the intervention and supervision of technical officers having control over the section office of the KSEB within whose limits the petitioner operates. It is her complaint that the meter turned faulty in 2006 and her son, who was the manager of the saw mill, had promptly informed the engineer. Monthly bills in relation to such consumption was issued, going by the relevant rules by the engineers themselves or the sub engineer. If there is escaped assessment or any excess demand on account of failure of meter wayback in 2006, WPC8010/2008 -:2:- the officers also have to explain the reason why such demand escaped for the last two years. It also needs to be considered by the duly competent authorities as to whether the officers had discharged the duties and responsibilities as are required in terms of law. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and if she makes an application within a period of two weeks, that shall be considered and a decision taken regarding the liability of the petitioner to answer the impugned demand. Until such a decision is taken, any action on the basis of the impugned demand will stand suspended. The CGRF will also look into the WPC8010/2008 -:3:- case in hand to find out whether the situation has been created with the blessings of the officers of the Electricity Board and if it is so found, appropriate communication shall be issued to the higher ups in the Board intimating such situation. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.