IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 2251 of 2000(R) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S. VIVEK RUBBER WORKS , PLOT NO.72, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KOCHUVELI, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETRESS, LALI VIJAYADHARAN. BY ADVS.MR.T.A.SHAJI MR.M.A.ASIF RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BEACH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SPECIAL SQUAD, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, POOVANTHURUTHU, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (TARIFF & COMMERCIAL) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. 4. MR.K.P.NADARAJ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, BEACH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.2251/2000 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 3.12.99 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 11.12.99 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SSQ(HQ)005/99/(S) /993/16.12.99 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE NO. SSQ (HQ) 005/99/(S)1064/6.1.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 15.1.2000 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 2251 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. She is conducting a small scale industrial unit by name Vivek Rubber Works functioning at the Industrial Development Area, Kochuveli, Thiruvananthapuram. The unit is engaged in the business of manufacturing of rubber sheet used for the purpose of making Hawai Chappals. On 18-11-1999, during lunch break, allegedly when nobody was in the unit, some officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board came to the factory. After doing something in the meter, they got something signed by the security personnel available on the site. Thereafter, Ext. P1 bill for Rs. 1,28,481/- was sent to the petitioner in addition to the normal bill with an endorsement on it that the same is as per APTS report. According to the petitioner, no report of APTS was served on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the bill by filing Ext. P2 representation before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent thereupon issued an order to the 1st respondent directing him to reconnect electricity supply to the petitioner's premises on collection of Rs. 25,000/- and reconnection fee. It was also directed to furnish the details of the bill to the 3rd respondent. Ext. P3 is that order. In the meantime, the electricity supply had already been disconnected by the 1st respondent. Since the petitioner had heavy stock of processed raw rubber, disposal of which could not brook delay because of chance of deterioration in quality, and therefore she paid the amount of Rs. 25,000/- and obtained reconnection. Thereafter, Ext. P4 re-assessment notice was issued to the petitioner stating that the defects noticed was on the inspection of a special squad from Kottayam and not that of APTS as stated in Ext. P1. It was also stated therein that two defects were noted in the petitioner's electricity installation, namely, (1) B phase and B phase CT of the meter was O.P.. No. 2251/2000 -: 2 :- running in the reverse direction, which defect was stated to be corrected at the time of inspection itself. (2) The capacitor installed was faulty. Based on Ext. P4, the 1st respondent issued revised demand for Rs. 93,384/- at the rate double the normal rate for previous six months. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P1, P4 and P5 seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the originals of Exhbits P1, P4 and P5; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent No. 1 to refund the amount already collected from the petitioner in accordance with Ext. P 3 or is alternate adjust the said amount in future bills.” 2. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed by the respondents, which is not available in the file. A copy of the same has been made available to me for perusal. In the same, they would seek to sustain the impugned orders. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. At the outset, I am constrained to note that the respondents have not chosen to favour this Court even with a copy of the report stated to have been prepared either by the anti-power theft squad or the special squad in respect of the alleged defect in the meter or the capacitor, although the impugned bills have been issued based on that report only. On the other hand, in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated thus: “6. The report of the Special Squad was not given to the petitioner since the Special Squad had specifically stated that this should not be given to the consumer.” As such, it is clear that the petitioner has not been served with any O.P.. No. 2251/2000 -: 3 :- report of either APTS or the special squad. I am of opinion that without supplying the petitioner with a copy of that report, the respondents could not have initiated the impugned proceedings. Further, the action of the special squad in directing not to disclose the report to the petitioner creates suspicion regarding the veracity of the report itself. More over, insofar as the squad themselves claim to have corrected the alleged defect at the time of inspection itself, except the word of the respondent, no evidence is available regarding the alleged defect in the meter. 5. As things now stand, there is absolutely no evidence with the respondents to prove their case that the meter was faulty because they themselves admit that the so called defect was corrected by them. The Kerala State Electricity Board is an interested party in the matter. Therefore, this Court cannot simply reject the contentions of the petitioner on the basis of a counter affidavit unsupported by any documents. In fact, they have no case that the petitioner has been, at any time, made aware of the fact that the meter was faulty. The petitioner had a right to object to such conclusion, if she had a contention that the meter was not faulty. She also had the right to seek reference to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. By the conduct of the special squad or the APTS in correcting the alleged defect in the meter by themselves, the petitioner has been deprived of that opportunity also. I do not think that on the basis of such unilateral and flimsy evidence, the respondents can demand such exorbitant amount of additional electricity charges from the petitioner. The respondents have sadly failed to prove their case by any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, Exts.P1 and P5 are quashed. Any amount collected from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned bills O.P.. No. 2251/2000 -: 4 :- shall be adjusted against future bills of the petitioner. If that is not possible at this point of time, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/