IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23285 of 2003(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- LATHA.S. DAS, W/O. SUDHAKARAN, G.105, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. BY ADVS. MR.P.V.GEORGE(ONAKKOOR), MR.REJI GEORGE, MR.THOMAS JOHN P, SMT.GEETHA.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL SECTION CENTRAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY MR. C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.23285/2003-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DEMAND CUM DISCONNECTION NOTICE DT. 13/12/2002 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GB1/22/03-04/732 DT. 05-07-2003 PASSED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.23285 OF 2003 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P2. 2. Petitioner is a LT consumer with consumer No.4249. It is stated that, in her premises, old meter was replaced with an electronic meter, installed on 24.5.2001. It is stated that thereafter she was issued Ext.P1 invoice demanding Rs.61,707/-. A reading of Ext.P1 itself show that the same is a short assessment bill issued based on an audit report. On its receipt, the petitioner filed appeal before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent by Ext.P2 dismissed the appeal. It is in this background the writ petition is filed. 3. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in the absence of the respondent having WP(c).No.23285/03 2 followed the procedure as laid down in Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, Exts.P1 and P2 deserves to be invalidated. He also relied on the judgment in Nirmala Metal Industries v. K.S.E.B and others (2006 (3) KLT 465). 4. A reading of Ext.P1 and P2 shows that, what led to the issuance of the demand is that, on replacement of the meter with the electronic meter, the respondent found that there was sudden increase in the consumption and on that basis concluded that previous meter was erroneous, in as much as the actual consumption was not being recorded. Based on that finding, the respondents have quantified the dues of the petitioner and issued Ext.P1. 5. Clearly this is a case where the demand has been issued on the basis that the meter was erroneous. If that be so, the respondent could not have issued the demand without following the procedure as contemplated in Section 26 (6) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910. This admittedly has not been done. If that be so, Exts.P1 and P2 cannot be sustained. This WP(c).No.23285/03 3 is the effect of judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner also. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P1 and P2. If any payment has been made by the petitioner in pursuance to Exts.P1 and P2, it is directed that the same will be adjusted against the petitioner's future bills. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/