IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 16083 of 1999(M) ----------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. N. KOMALAVALLY, LAKSHMI VIHAR, NAYARAMBALAM, KOCHI -682 509. 2. T.N. SAROJINI, CHITTETH HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, KOCHI 682 509. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUDHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY G.P.SRI.K. SANDESH RAJA SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.26149 OF 1999 IN OP.NO.16083 OF 1999-M DISMISSED 4.2.2008. SD/= P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER's EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ADJUSTMENT INVOICE DTD 1.6.99 FOR RS.2519/- ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ADJUSTMENT INVOICE DTD 1.6.99FOR RS.1,168/- ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ cl P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.NO.16083 OF 1999-M -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners, who are consumers of electrical energy have in this original petition challenged Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 adjustment invoices issued to them. 2. By Ext.P1 adjustment invoice, the 1st petitioner was called upon to pay the sum of Rs.2,519/= and by Ext.P2 adjustment invoice, the 2nd petitioner was called upon to pay the sum of Rs.1,168/= as arrears of energy charges. The petitioners contend that the demand in Ext.P1 for arrears of energy charges during the period from 12/94 to 12/96 and in Ext.P2 for the period from 12/94 to 6/97 is without any authority or basis. The petitioners also contend that the respondents have no authority to claim arrears beyond a period of six months. They also contend that they have not used electrical energy in excess of the units permitted under the slab system. The petitioners also allege that in Ext.P1 the fascimile signature of the issuing authority was affixed using a rubber stamp but in Ext.P2 the signature in hand writing appears O.P.NO.16083/1999 . 2 and hence they are bogus bills issued to extort money from them. 3. The 2nd respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer, has sworn to a counter affidavit justifying the levy of energy charges in Exts.P1 and P2. The 2nd respondent has, after referring to the consumption pattern of the petitioners (the details are set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit) stated that having regard to the energy consumed, the adjustment bills are beyond challenge. The 2nd respondent has also justified the levy of energy charges at different rates in Exts.P1 and P2 with reference to the tarrif in force from time to time and also the actual amount of energy consumed. He has also stated that since the consumption of energy is different in the case of the two petitioners, there will be difference in the energy charges payable by them. The petitioners have not chosen to file a reply affidavit disputing the statements in the counter affidavit. 4. I have heard Sri. B. Ramamchandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.K. Karunakaran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The essence of O.P.NO.16083/1999 . 3 the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Board cannot demand arrears of energy charges for a period exceeding six months immediately prior to the date of issue of the bills. He further contended that the Board cannot levy energy charges for the energy consumed during the period of 25 months in one block. The said point is covered against the petitioners by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Southern India Marine Products Co., v. K.S.E.B (1995 (2) KLT 167). In the said decision, a Division Bench of this Court held that the law of limitation does not apply to levy of energy charges by the Board and that under the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, the consumer is bound to pay the energy charges and also the arrears, if any, from time to time. 5. As regards the second contention that there was a delay of 24 months in issuing Ext.P1 bill and a delay of 30 months in issuing Ext.P2, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the said contention as well. The petitioners were paying energy charges under the slab system on the premise that their use is confined to the allotted quota of electrical energy. Once the petitioners exceed the said limit, they are bound to pay energy charges for the energy O.P.NO.16083/1999 . 4 consumed in excess of the allotted quota. The counter affidavit sworn to by the second respondent discloses that the petitioners are using energy in excess of the allotted quota. The petitioners cannot evade payment of energy charges on the ground that adjustment invoices were issued belatedly. The petitioners are in law bound to pay for the electrical energy consumed in their homes. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the original petition. The original petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl O.P.NO.16083/1999 . 5 P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.NO.16083 OF 1999-M JUDGMENT 4th February, 2008.