IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 10107 of 2005(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ST. JOSEPH PROVINCE OF THE SISTERS OF THE DESTITUTE, CHETHIPUZHA, KURISUMMOODU, CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER SUPERIOR. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THENGANA, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, K.S.E.B., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.10107/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 SERIES : TRUE COPY OF BILLS FOR THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY CONSUMED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF PREMISES METER CARD KEPT BY THE SIDE OF THE METER. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF METER READING KEPT IN THE KSEB OFFICE RECORD BOOK MARKED BY THE METER READERS. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF BILL DATED 11.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT.06.10.2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF BILL DATED 20.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 21.10.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DT.30.10.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.21.02.2005 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF REVISED INVOICE DT.05.03.2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rv B.P. RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.10107 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB. 2. The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy with Consumer No. 5912. The petitioner was regular in paying the electricity charges. The normal consumption was between 700 to 1000 units per month. It is alleged that for the period 09.09.2004 to 09.10.2004, 3840 units were consumed by the petitioner. The petitioner was served with Ext.P4 bill for `10,057/- along with a notice stating that one phase of the meter is not recording energy and the petitioner is liable to pay 50% of the recorded consumption to compensate the unrecorded portion of the energy. The petitioner was again served with Ext.P6 bill for `32,589/- stating that the petitioner should pay 50% of the recorded consumption for the period during which there was a jump or spurt in the meter apart from the alleged consumption of 3840 units. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent as per Ext.P9 order dated 21.02.2005 disposed of the appeal directing the Asst. Engineer, W.P.(C) No. 10107/2005 -:2:- Electrical Section, Thengana to revise the reassessment bill by making reassessment for 50% of the recorded consumption to compensate the unrecorded portion of energy retrospectively for the past six months from the date of change of the old meter based on the final reading taken at the time of change of the old meter. As per Ext.P9 order, the petitioner was served with Ext.P10 bill for an amount of Rs.20,062/-. Hence this writ petition. 3. In a recent judgment passed by the Apex Court in Executive Engineer and another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (C.A. No. 8859 of 2011), it is held as follows: “As per Section 127 of the 2003 Act, only a final order of assessment passed under Section 126(3) is an order appealable under Section 127 and a notice-cum provisional assessment made under Section 126(2) is not appealable. Thus, the High Court should normally decline to interfere in a final order of assessment passed by the assessing officer. The High Court having dealt with the jurisdictional issue, the appropriate course of action would have been to remand the matter to the assessing authority by directing the consumer to file his objections, if any, as contemplated under Section 126(3) and require the authority to pass a final order of assessment as contemplated under Section 126(5) of the 2003 Act in accordance with law.” 4. Following the aforesaid decision, I set aside Exts.P9 and P10 and remit the matter to the assessing authority to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Let the petitioner pay `10,000/- on or before 09.01.2012 on which date the W.P.(C) No. 10107/2005 -:3:- petitioner shall appear before the assessing authority. The assessing authority shall inspect the meter through authorised officer and if found defective new meter shall be installed and the petitioner will be given an opportunity of hearing before raising any further demand. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 10107/2005 -:4:- B.P. RAY, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- O.P.No. 13887 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT