IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 8311 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BALARAMAPURAM, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, BALARAMAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. KERALA LOK AYUKTHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K. MOHANAN NAIR, S/O.KUMARA PILLAI, PROPRIETOR MULLOORAMMA SERVICE STATION, NADAKKADU, NARUVANMMODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 8311/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.3.2007 COMPLAINT NO.82 OF 2006. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.8311 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners challenge Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is an order on a complaint filed by the second respondent before the Kerala Lok Ayuktha. The second respondent came to be issued with an adjustment bill on 5.1.2006. Apparently the second respondent was being billed under LT IVA. The applicable rate was under LT VIIA as the second respondent was running a vehicle service station. It is to rectify the same, apparently that the adjustment bill was issued on 5.1.2006. The period of the adjustment bill is from October, 2002 to November, 2004. The Lok Ayuktha taking note of the judgment of this court in Abdul Nazar v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2006(1) ILR 538) apparently agreed with the petitioners that as far as the arrears upto 10.12.2003 are concerned, it would not attract the bar under Section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act. However the Lok Ayuktha proceeded to take the view that as per Section 56(2) no sum due from any customer shall be recoverable after two years from the date when such sum became first due and therefore the complainant is not liable to pay the arrears due from 10.12.2003 to 5.1.2006 (apparently it is a mistake and it can only be from 10.12.2003 to November, 2004). WPC.8311/2008. 2 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that there is no jurisdiction and there is no maladministration. She invited my attention to the Division Bench decision of this court in O.P.30718 of 2000. She further contended that adjustment bill was issued on 5.1.2006 and therefore the bar under Section 56(2) will not apply. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent on the other hand submits that it cannot be said that the complaint was without jurisdiction as maladministration includes any action, which is unreasonable etc. He would submit that Section 56(2) is applicable and therefore that the complaint was lodged and the adjustment bill was illegal. There is nothing wrong in the Lok Ayuktha interfering with the matter. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. R.T. Pradeep, learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that as such this point was not taken up before the Lok Ayuktha or in this case also. He would further contend that the amount became first due in 2002 and therefore the adjustment invoice in January, 2006 is clearly beyond two years. WPC.8311/2008. 3 5. I think that there is merit in the contention of the petitioners that the Lok Ayuktha has acted illegally in interfering with the adjustment invoice in relation to the period from 10.12.2003. What Section 56(2) provides is a period of limitation of two years. The period would start to run from the date on which the amount becomes first due. The Lok Ayuktha has correctly applied the law in relation to the amount representing the arrears upto to 10.12.2003. Thereafter, in my view, the Lok Ayuktha acted illegally when it did not consider the question as to when the amount became first due. The bills are issued on monthly basis, which becomes due only after a period of one month. For the period December, 2003, the amount will become due only on 10.1.2004. The bills for the subsequent months will become due only after the expiry of a period of one month at the minimum. If that be so, the adjustment bill, which was issued in January, 2006 cannot be said to be beyond the period of two years, which is what prohibited in Section 56(2). It is therefore clear that the adjustment bill, said to be issued in relation to the period after the Act came into force is not barred by the period mentioned in Section 56(2). The date of the adjustment bill is not in dispute. Therefore, it may be a hyper technicality to contend that the plea pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the adjustment invoice being issued in time in so far as it relates WPC.8311/2008. 4 to the months from December, 2003 onwards till November, 2004 are not barred was not raised as such. In my view, the adjustment invoice cannot be said to beyond the period of two years for the period after 10.12.2003 till November, 2004. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P1 is quashed. But at the same time, the second respondent is granted six equal monthly instalments to pay off the amount, the first of which shall be payable on or before the 1st of December, 2008 and the further instalments on or before the first working day of the succeeding months. If the petitioners do not pay any of the instalments, the petitioners will lose the benefit of this judgment and recovery can be made in accordance with law. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb The judgment stands corrected as follows: In the last sentence the word 'petitioners' occurring in two places, shall be read as 'second respondent' . (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) 28.11.2008.